| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:00.03 | Unknown | Chair Luxembourg will be joining us. |
| 00:00:24.94 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 00:00:29.55 | Unknown | Recording in progress. |
| 00:01:02.16 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:01:29.74 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:01:44.98 | Unknown | you |
| 00:01:56.18 | Unknown | We have a call. |
| 00:01:57.94 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:01:57.95 | Unknown | I'm going to go. |
| 00:02:00.72 | Unknown | you |
| 00:02:48.32 | Chair Luxembourg | What are we doing? Are we waiting for a quorum or what's going on? |
| 00:02:57.86 | Mayor Blaustein | We're gonna start in just a minute. |
| 00:02:59.18 | Walfred Solorzano | Good afternoon, Mayor Blasden, Councilmembers and Planning Commission. This meeting has been |
| 00:03:08.14 | Vice Chair Junius | Okay, we're gonna wait one more minute. |
| 00:03:14.97 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:03:21.23 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:03:21.26 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:03:21.47 | Unknown | Thank you. Good afternoon, Marble. |
| 00:03:23.97 | Walfred Solorzano | Justin. |
| 00:03:24.56 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:03:24.67 | Walfred Solorzano | Council members and planning commission. This meeting is being held Pursuant to government code section 54953 E. And in light of the declared state of emergency, the special joint meeting for January 30, 2023 will be conducted telephonically through Zoom and broadcast live on the city's website and cable TV channel 27. In addition, council chamber is open and we do have people in attendance. One more note for those in attendance that would like to speak today. There are speaker forms. You can hand them over to the city clerk's office and now hand it over to the mayor. |
| 00:03:57.43 | Mayor Blaustein | Thank you very much, city clerk. I'm calling the media to order today at 3 0 7 PM. Would you please call the role of both the planning commission and the city council? |
| 00:04:04.84 | Walfred Solorzano | I'll start with the city council. |
| 00:04:06.64 | Chair Luxembourg | Excuse me, can we get the Zoom team to get proper titles and proper so the public knows which are commissioners as opposed to the general public? Can we get that done, please? |
| 00:04:17.58 | Mayor Blaustein | I'm sorry, Chair Luxembourg, we can't hear you. |
| 00:04:20.72 | Chair Luxembourg | Um... Somebody I need to be unmuted. |
| 00:04:23.28 | Walfred Solorzano | I need to be unmuted. Councilman Jim Cox. Council member Joe James Hoffman. |
| 00:04:28.31 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:04:28.36 | Chair Luxembourg | Yeah. |
| 00:04:28.76 | Unknown | I can hear you. |
| 00:04:32.23 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:04:32.24 | Walfred Solorzano | HERE. Councilmember General Comments. Here. Weissman Ian Sobieski. here. And minggu blasting. |
| 00:04:40.24 | Adriana Bentley | Here. |
| 00:04:41.79 | Walfred Solorzano | And for the planning commission. Can you hear me now? Mr. Klaus? |
| 00:04:44.15 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:04:44.17 | Adriana Bentley | I can't. |
| 00:04:45.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:04:45.12 | Adriana Bentley | Thank you. |
| 00:04:45.19 | Unknown | Thank you. you Mr. Febler? Mr. Commissioner Christina Feller. Commissioner Richard Graff? Can we? |
| 00:04:52.98 | Chair Luxembourg | I'm not sure. |
| 00:04:53.06 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:04:53.32 | Chair Luxembourg | Thank you. |
| 00:04:59.06 | Unknown | Commissioner Richard Graff? |
| 00:05:00.46 | Commissioner Saad | Um, this is, um, commissioner sod. Commissioner Graff is having a little bit of a hard time joining the meeting. So he's trying again and we expect him to be here. |
| 00:05:09.82 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you very much. Council member Nastasia Saad. |
| 00:05:14.39 | Commissioner Saad | Commissioner Saad, and I'm here. |
| 00:05:16.34 | Walfred Solorzano | Vice Chair Andrew Janice. Present. And. Chair Jeffrey Luxenberg. |
| 00:05:25.38 | Chair Luxembourg | I'm here, but I keep being shut off by the Zoom team and I can't speak. So can we rectify that, number one? And number two, what I was trying to say is we need to identify the commissioners in the Zoom thing. We usually do that before we go live. And I really can Zoom team do that, please. Usually put the name commissioner after the people's name. Can that be accomplished? Thank you. |
| 00:05:50.73 | Mayor Blaustein | We've already done that, sir. We just did a roll call with all of the commission. So all of the commissioners are present, except for Commissioner Graff, who's having some difficulty joining the meeting. Also, from the audio side, it's a little bit difficult to hear you, Chair Wexenberg. I don't know if you can speak closer to your microphone. It doesn't seem to be a consistent problem for the rest of the folks joining us on Zoom and City Hall. |
| 00:06:13.19 | Chair Luxembourg | I keep being cut off by the Zoom team. I can see it, number one. Number two, Commissioner Junius is vice chair. It doesn't say that. Commissioner Fellow, that just got added. Mr. Sobieski doesn't say counselor on it. So the names for the Zoom team have not been completed. And I would request that the Zoom team accomplish that. Can you hear me now? |
| 00:06:37.37 | Brandon Phipps | Yes, Chair Luxenberg, I believe if you just refresh your agenda, you'll be able to see the updated titles. |
| 00:06:37.40 | Chair Luxembourg | Yes. |
| 00:06:43.97 | Joan Cox | Is he talking about how we are identified on Zoom? on a show. |
| 00:06:47.11 | Chair Luxembourg | I'm not talking about the agenda, Director Phipps. I'm talking about- |
| 00:06:47.33 | Brandon Phipps | I'll just go. |
| 00:06:51.22 | Brandon Phipps | Yeah. |
| 00:06:51.24 | Unknown | Oh, excuse me. Thank you. |
| 00:06:52.76 | Chair Luxembourg | So if you scroll down, you should see names. Councilor Sobieski should be so identified and it's not done that way. |
| 00:06:56.64 | Mayor Blaustein | So I saw the asking should be |
| 00:06:58.11 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:07:00.05 | Mayor Blaustein | I wish their title was their Zoom title. Thank you. |
| 00:07:02.45 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, I can't, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Okay. Sorry, now I'm really loud. I think Chair Luxenberg, you were concerned about how the, the commissioners, the planning commissioners were identified on the Zoom titles And I think we fixed that. with both the council members and the planning commissioners. Was that your concern around the planning commissioners? |
| 00:07:23.19 | Chair Luxembourg | That was my concern. And when I raised the concern and I was muted, only about two of them were done. And now the ones I see are done, but they weren't done when I tried to raise that. |
| 00:07:35.88 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thank you, sir. I think we're in trouble hearing this. So if you might be able to get closer to your microphone, that would help us too. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:07:43.55 | Chair Luxembourg | I will try to change microphones or whatever. Let me try to do that. |
| 00:07:49.83 | Mayor Blaustein | Are those members joining us and commissioners on Zoom able to hear Commissioner Luxembourg? I just want to understand if this is a problem with his technology or with what we're hearing at City Hall. Can you hear him clearly when he's speaking? |
| 00:07:59.75 | Commissioner Saad | I can hear him clearly. I can hear him clearly as well. Okay, so we need to figure out what's happening with the audio. |
| 00:08:05.44 | Joan Cox | Because we hear everyone else clearly, except for him. Chair Luxembourg. |
| 00:08:05.52 | Commissioner Saad | Thank you. |
| 00:08:12.29 | Jill Hoffman | Perhaps during the closed session, you guys can work on that with Charlie's |
| 00:08:14.94 | Chair Luxembourg | Is this better? |
| 00:08:18.30 | Jill Hoffman | No. |
| 00:08:19.23 | Commissioner Feller | Chair, why don't we work on that in closed session so the city council can move forward. |
| 00:08:25.52 | Mayor Blaustein | Thank you very much, Commissioner Feller. So now we'll move forward with the first item on the agenda, which is the closed session agenda item conference. with legal counsel on anticipated litigation, government code, 5495 6.9. So I will now open it up to public comment. And city clerk, could you please remind members of the public how they might give public comment at this time? |
| 00:08:46.11 | Walfred Solorzano | Video and audio public comment participation is limited. At the mayor's discretion. If you'd like to make a comment, please use the raise hand function on the Zoom application and you'll have your time to speak. Use and if you're by phone, press star nine. Each speaker will be notified when their time has elapsed. If you are here in person, please fill out one of the speaker forms that are over at the table by the TV and then come over to the clerk's table and you can hand us your speaker form. |
| 00:09:16.01 | Mayor Blaustein | Thank you, city clerk. Do we have any public comment on the closed session agenda items at this time? |
| 00:09:22.12 | Walfred Solorzano | Okay. |
| 00:09:23.17 | Mayor Blaustein | Seeing none, I will now close public comment and we will adjourn to closed session. And for members of the public, we expect to return by 3.30. |
| 00:09:37.91 | Chair Luxembourg | Is it possible to have the Zoom team address this sound issue? |
| 00:09:47.48 | Chair Luxembourg | Is anybody a member of the Zoom team here? |
| 00:09:53.27 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:10:21.84 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:10:32.22 | Walfred Solorzano | What will call you? Yeah. We'll call you up on the... Do you want to speak or do you want to speak? |
| 00:10:37.23 | Mayor Blaustein | Oh, thank you. |
| 00:10:38.09 | Walfred Solorzano | much better. |
| 00:10:39.24 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:10:39.27 | Mayor Blaustein | Thank you so much. |
| 00:10:39.86 | Unknown | you |
| 00:10:40.00 | Walfred Solorzano | Well, we're doing it by the order. Thank you. |
| 00:10:44.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:10:55.59 | Mayor Blaustein | Okay, city clerk, do we have everyone or? |
| 00:10:58.70 | Walfred Solorzano | I believe everybody's on. |
| 00:11:07.50 | Mayor Blaustein | Okay, welcome back. We have returned from- Recording in progress. Are we all set city clerk fantastic we're returning from closed session we have no announcements. And before we begin this meeting this evening, I just wanted to make sure to acknowledge all of the time and effort spent by staff and planning Commission and the community to engage on this really critical. This is a joint hearing this evening, so there will be a representation and report from staff And then there will be a hearing of the planning commission where members of the public will be given the opportunity to comment. Then there will be a brief recess and there will be a hearing of the city council. At both instances, members of the public will be able to make public comment. But because there will be two opportunities for public comment this evening at each juncture, public comment will be a minute and 30 seconds. So you will get a full three minutes opportunity. But due to the amount of public comment and the hundreds of letters from our engaged community that we've received, I wanted to make sure that the public was aware of that as we open the meeting. And I would also ask that everyone you respectful as this can be a contentious issue and I appreciate everyone's participation this evening. So with that, I'm going to ask for a approval of the agenda. So moved. Second. City clerk, would you please call the roll? |
| 00:12:20.74 | Walfred Solorzano | Council Member Cox? Yes. |
| 00:12:24.24 | Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 00:12:24.29 | Commissioner Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:12:24.96 | Walfred Solorzano | Council Member Cummins. |
| 00:12:27.83 | Commissioner Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:12:27.85 | Mayor Blaustein | Yes. |
| 00:12:28.18 | Commissioner Feller | Thank you. |
| 00:12:29.33 | Walfred Solorzano | Vice Mayor Sobieski? Here, I mean, yes. And Mayor Blossom? |
| 00:12:33.25 | Mayor Blaustein | Yes. |
| 00:12:36.76 | Mayor Blaustein | and the Planning Commission. |
| 00:12:37.87 | Walfred Solorzano | Oh, sorry. PLANNING COMMISSION. Commissioner Fowler. |
| 00:12:44.37 | Vice Chair Junius | Commissioner Feller. you did. You're muted, Christina. |
| 00:12:48.43 | Mayor Blaustein | Chair Lexenberg, could you make a motion to approve the agenda for the planning commission? |
| 00:12:52.55 | Chair Luxembourg | Uh, uh, I so move that we approve the agenda on behalf of the planning commission. |
| 00:12:59.62 | Unknown | Second. Second. |
| 00:13:03.03 | Walfred Solorzano | Okay, Commissioner Graff. |
| 00:13:05.51 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:13:07.01 | Walfred Solorzano | Commissioner Saad. |
| 00:13:08.43 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:13:09.43 | Walfred Solorzano | Commissioner Felder? |
| 00:13:13.11 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:13:15.15 | Walfred Solorzano | Vice Chair Junius. Yes. And share Luxembourg. Yes. |
| 00:13:23.03 | Mayor Blaustein | Thank you very much. We will now move to item three on the agenda, which is the consent calendar. Matters listed under the consent calendar are considered routine and non-controversial. require no discussion, are expected to have unanimous council support and may be enacted by the council in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of consent calendar items. However, before the council votes on a motion to adopt the consent calendar items, council members, city staff, or members of the public, may request that specific items be removed from the consent calendar for separate actions. Items removed from the consent calendar will be discussed later on the agenda and public comment will be heard on any item that was removed from the consent calendar. Can I have a motion to approve the item on this consent calendar this evening is 3A. Consider introduction and waiver of first reading of ordinance number 022023. An ordinance repealing Sausalito Municipal Code section 2.04010 regular meeting times and provide direction to staff regarding council meeting regular times. So moved. Second. City Clerk, would you please call the roll? |
| 00:14:22.80 | Walfred Solorzano | Council member Cox? Yes. Council member Hoffman? Yes. |
| 00:14:22.95 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:14:22.97 | Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 00:14:23.00 | Jill Hoffman | you Thank you. |
| 00:14:24.12 | Mayor Blaustein | Yes. Yes. |
| 00:14:27.32 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 00:14:27.34 | Mayor Blaustein | Yes. |
| 00:14:27.61 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Vice Mayor Sobieski. Yes. And my last name. |
| 00:14:31.64 | Mayor Blaustein | Yes. So we will now move to item 4A. And just again, as a point of order, this item is agendized as the public hearing by the Planning Commission on review and recommendation of the six cycle housing element However, this will be the same presentation received from staff. So both the city council and the planning commission will ask questions after the presentation before. public comment is heard by the planning commission. So can we begin with the first presentation? I believe we have Beth, our consultant from |
| 00:15:02.46 | Brandon Phipps | Yes, thank you Mayor. City Clerk, can we make sure that Beth Thompson has sharing ability? Hey, Mr. Thompson. |
| 00:15:09.07 | Beth Thompson | Good evening or good afternoon. Sorry. |
| 00:15:09.64 | Brandon Phipps | I'm not kidding. |
| 00:15:12.33 | Beth Thompson | All right, I have shared my screen, so hopefully everyone can now see the presentation. All right. Well, it's a pleasure to be with the Council and Planning Commission as we're in the final push of the housing element update. So I'll just quickly give an overview of the current items and next steps in the housing element. So as you know, the housing element was out for HCD review from October through January, and we received preliminary HCD comments in mid January and the formal comment letter on January 26 and worked with Planning Commission to review the preliminary comments and then worked to address those HCD comments for the items tonight. January 30th, 2023, the adoption hearing for the housing element update is being held following tonight. |
| 00:16:00.57 | Unknown | following. |
| 00:16:02.06 | Beth Thompson | The state will review the housing element for 60 days, so the housing element gets adopted and then is submitted to the state for its 60 day review period and during this time we can coordinate with HCD staff to address issues. there is the potential to submit revisions. So we will be talking with HCD staff and making sure they understand the intent of the revisions, and we can provide any clarifying information during during that period. Following HCD's review and approval of the housing elements, so around April 2023, we anticipate the city will work to begin implementing the housing elements, so initiating that process to implement the 30-ish programs in the housing element update. So. I'll quickly just go through the purpose of tonight's agenda item to it's an opportunity and forum for the public to provide input on the housing element update. And then for the planning Commission to consider adoption of a recommendation regarding adoption of the six cycle housing element. And then the plan following that the city council will consider adoption of a resolution to adopt the six cycle housing element and that resolution will consider the planning commission recommendation. findings to address state this, the state's comments on the housing element and to ensure that the housing elements internally consistent with the general plan and is substantially compliant with state housing element law. So this has been a... quite a detailed process. Starting in February 2021, the city established a working group of two city council members and two planning commissioners to assist the Community Development Department with scoping the housing element update process and then serving as liaisons both to their bodies, city council and planning commission, as well as to the HEAC, the housing element advisory committee. The Housing Element Advisory Committee met 10 times from October 2021 through October 2022, and also held three special town hall meetings. And at all of these meetings, the public was provided opportunities to comment, provide input on the discussion and the items up for consideration. The city's also held a series of additional noticed housing element related meetings, including a housing element scoping session, joint session with the City Council and Planning Commission earlier this month, a regular Planning Commission meeting this month as well. And then tonight's joint session and then last year, the city council also held several other meetings at which housing element updates were provided, including a meeting to focus on the selection of sites. So throughout this process, there has been a lot of public input. We've heard from the community many times is that, as I mentioned, the public was invited to comment at the, HEAC meetings. And then we also received comments, written comments and comments and input via the community surveys and mailers. as well as participation in the town halls, which provided opportunities for public comment, as well as some online and virtual interactions and questionnaires for input. And the input from the community is represented in the So the city posts its meeting recordings online. So you can see the meetings and the comment provided during those meetings. There's also an online virtual binder for the Housing Element Advisory Committee that has all of the materials provided to the HIAC during during its tenure and includes public comments that were provided to the HEAC as well. And then public comments made for specific meeting items have also been posted to the agenda of those meetings and are included as attachments to those meetings. I'll just do a quick overview of what's in the draft housing element since we discussed this at the last joint session. It's a two component document. It has a housing plan and that's really the life of the document. It identifies the city's goals, policies and implementation programs that it will enact over the eight year housing element period. It also specifies specific quantified objectives, milestones and actions for the city to take during that time. The background report has a lot of data in it, a lot of information. It includes a housing needs assessment. It looks at both governmental and non-governmental constraints to housing, production, rehabilitation and maintenance. It provides a discussion of the inventory of sites available in the city for residential development. And it also reviews the potential opportunity to upzone or increase the density of various underutilized and vacant sites in the city. It addresses affirmatively furthering fair housing and ensuring that the housing element is encouraging opportunities to promote equal and fair access to housing throughout the city. It evaluates the city's performance on the 2015 to 2023 housing element, addresses some other requirements for state law, and also provides a robust set of appendices that includes a lot of data regarding the individual housing sites, the public input that's been received throughout the process, and some other information as well. So. I'll go through the planning commission's recommendation at its January 25th meeting. And the planning commission did not adopt a formal resolution regarding a recommendation on the housing element at that meeting, but rather considered the information in the housing element, considered the sites and provided direction to staff and the consultant team regarding recommended revisions to the housing element to be considered at tonight's meeting. the Planning Commission identified clarifications to housing plan programs, modified the opportunity site overlays, and I'll explain that on the next slide. it, removed or modified certain sites, included additional sites, and then also identified and suggested revisions to address preliminary HCD comments. So- Regarding the modifications to these sites, there were some modifications to the overlays and so We identified changes and I'll actually just go back aside here. Regarding the modifications of the opportunity site overlays, When we initially prepared the housing element, there were a series of three overlays that identified a maximum density of 49 units per acre for the multifamily 49 or opportunity 49 category, a density of 70 units per acre for the opportunity 70 category, and then a density of 49 units per acre plus mixed use for the mixed use category. And to modify those overlays, the Planning Commission didn't increase the maximum density allowed, but did establish a base density for each of those opportunity districts. And what that does is that allows the city to take more credit for those sites, because that is the base calculation for each of those sites. So we can assume that is the minimum. rather than an 80% reduction or a 20% reduction from capacity. So that just allows the city to get more credit for the sites. So now I'll go through the Planning Commission's modifications to the sites that are included in the inventory, as well as the opportunity sites for consideration for rezoning. For Site 47 at 300 Locust, the income ranges were revised, and this site was too small to include as a very low and low-income capacity site, so the income levels were modified to reflect that. A series of sites along bridgeway to a seven through 210 bridgeway were designated as opportunity sites which increases the capacity, so these would be within the. opportunity, the housing 49 unit per acre designation. Sites 202 through 206, which are the Altamira residential facility. located at 125 Buckley were also designated as an opportunity site, and that would provide capacity for about 64 units. And the owner has expressed interest in developing five of the six parcels on that site. The site's currently leased, and so |
| 00:23:38.90 | Unknown | Absolutely. |
| 00:23:40.59 | Beth Thompson | There is an option to extend that lease, but it would become available during the housing element cycle. A site at 2660 Bridgeway was identified as an opportunity site with capacity for nine units. A site at 611 Bridgeway, the real Napa site, was also identified as having potential for the parking lot to be developed with multifamily or mixed use. The Caltrans site, which is not a parcel, but it's a portion of the Caltrans right-of-way along Eptide, was already designated as a backup site, and that was converted to an opportunity site to be an active site. And then similarly, the site at 330 ebbtide was also had been designated as a backup site. So that was bumped up to be an opportunity site. And lastly, site 212, which is located at North or West of Sunshine on Sausalito, that is a vacant lot. And that was also converted to an opportunity site. The Planning Commission also identified removal or modification to a number of sites. The planning commission identified removal of site 14 at 300 Spencer, and that's the city's former firehouse number two. So that was removed. Sites 100 located at 66 Marion was also removed. And the commission did note that the housing element can include a note that the site has the potential to develop. And this is true of a number of sites in the city. There are sites that aren't necessarily included in the inventory of sites or as an opportunity site, but they do have general plan and zoning designations in place that will allow the site to develop. And so there are many sites in the city that fall into this category. Not all of them are sites that necessarily make it into the housing element, or some of them are sites that won't necessarily meet the requirements for HCD The planning commission also recommended removal of the city hall site site number 52. and I'm not sure. Site 84 was also recommended for a modification, and this is the MLK site. And basically the commission ensured that the inventory of sites and opportunity sites only looks at sub area one of this parcel. and doesn't look at the entire site, just to focus where development would occur. And then also increased the number of units that would occur on this site to offset some of the changes elsewhere in the sites. And the Planning Commission lastly recommended removal of sites 67 and 68. which are the office buildings located at 2320 Marinship, as well as the vacant parcel next to that. So with these changes, the Planning Commission's modifications did still identify adequate capacity to accommodate the RHNA and included a modest buffer as well. Following this planning commission meeting, the city council's working group convened and reviewed the planning commission's recommendation, reviewed HCD comments, and reviewed the public input that's been received to date. And it's noted that the council working group also reviewed comments that had been made directly to the council. So not just comments made regarding the housing element, but comments made regarding various city owned sites and other topics that have been made throughout the process. And so. The City Council Working Group teamed with City Staff and asked to develop a series of modifications to the housing elements. And these, clarify various housing plans and programs, continue to modify the opportunity site overlays, and then also to identify some additional sites for discussion. And it's noted here that the City Council Working Group does not anticipate that all of the changes identified for the sites that will be discussed or identified for potential discussion will necessarily be included in the adopted housing element, but wants to ensure that there is an opportunity for the public and the Council and Commission to discuss potential modifications to the inventory and ensure that you're looking at opportunities to balance accommodating the regional housing need allocation throughout the city. And lastly, the Council working group focused on ensuring that revisions to the housing element address HCD is comments and findings and those are included on attachment three. So the modifications to these sites recommended by the Council Working Group were to reduce the unit count at MLK. So that would be reduced to 70 units, a reduction of 82 units. And then also to remove site 208, which is located at 927-929 Bridgeway. And the property owner there had indicated they're not interested in developing their property under the housing element. |
| 00:27:54.52 | Unknown | reduction. |
| 00:28:09.81 | Beth Thompson | The council working group also identified a number of sites for consideration to be included in the housing element. They looked at the potential to include city hall with a modest amount of development, 10 units. So that's. recommended for discussion or for consideration. Then also looking at Site 303, which is located at 1 and 3 Harbor Drive. This is an office building located in the Marin Ship. And the property owner is interested in developing housing on that site. in the parking area. So this would not replace the existing office uses, but is anticipated just to accommodate be accommodated in a portion of the parking area. Site 305 located at 2650 Bridgeway is also identified to consider for inclusion. This is a former restaurant. It was recently purchased by a developer with an intent to develop the site so there is property owner interest on that site. Also recommended to include site 306 located at 3000 Bridgeway and the city's in the process of determining property owner interest for that site. as well as including 225 locusts. There's interest in this site as well. And this site also includes APN 065-032-01, which is located adjacent to the parcel that's highlighted on the map. And then lastly, the city identified one of the city's water-based parcels for inclusion as well and really focusing on the potential to accommodate water based housing and continue to focus on accommodating a portion of the arena through the city's water sites. And I'd like to note here that sites 2700 Bridgeway and 3001 Bridgeway were incorrectly identified for addition. So these sites are not recommended to be included in the housing elements. So those are removed from this slide. They are still shown in appendix D1A, but will be removed from that appendix. And related to these sites, There's... They're identified for discussion. There's definitely an opportunity for modifications. Up until there's |
| 00:30:13.40 | Unknown | Beth, I think we lost you for a second. |
| 00:30:27.63 | Beth Thompson | Would you take that mean that the site will not be developed? That's okay. |
| 00:30:27.95 | Brandon Phipps | Not me. So. Sorry, Ms. Thompson, we just lost you for a moment, maybe for the past 15 or so seconds on audio. If you would be so kind as to just take a couple steps back and repeat the conclusion of the previous slide, that would be helpful. |
| 00:30:45.60 | Beth Thompson | Okay. Can you hear me now? |
| 00:30:48.27 | Brandon Phipps | Yes, and last time we heard from you, you were mentioning that the 2,700 and 3,001 Bridgeway properties were not included. If you could just pick it up from there, that would be fantastic. |
| 00:30:56.96 | Beth Thompson | Okay. So yes, these sites are not recommended to be included in the housing element. They are included in the appendix, the table that shows the matrix of all of the sites, but will be removed from that table and will be removed from the unit calculations. And I would like to note related to these sites that there is opportunity for adjustments and consideration. And to keep in mind that a number of these sites development can occur on regardless of being included in the housing element and to ensure that the community understands if a site is not included in the housing element. That does not rule out whether or not development of that site can occur during the sixth cycle. Sites will be able to develop based on their general plan designation, zoning plus density bonus law and property owners can continue to request re-zones and entitlements for their sites throughout the planning period. And during future housing element cycles, the city may also opt to consider additional sites. I'd also like to note that if a site is included in the housing element, that does not obligate the property owner to develop the site. The site's included and identified for rezoning to encourage and incentivize its reuse or development during the planning period. But those sites do not have to develop. However, where there are city owned sites, the city is obligated to take steps to encourage development of those sites to ensure that they're available for development during the planning period. With that said, the net result of the modifications to the sites ends up providing a total of 800 capacity for 893 units in the community to accommodate the regional housing need allocation. This would meet the six-cycle RHNA. It would actually exceed the six-cycle RHNA for very low-income units by six units, would exceed the lower-income requirement by nine units, exceed the moderate-income unit requirement by 79, and then exceed the above-moderate-income unit requirement by 78 units. So there would be a buffer of sites. We did make some reductions to the sites anticipated to accommodate the low and very low units based on the state's comments related to sites that were less than half an acre. So some of the sites we did remove a couple of units. So you'll see some adjustments in the inventory based on those those modifications. In addition to the recommended discussion of the sites and modification to the sites, the City Council Working Group also reviewed and worked to make revisions to address HCD comments. And an overview of these revisions is provided in Attachment 3 and also as sub documents to Attachment 6, there are the modifications are shown and track changes to the housing plan and the background report. The modifications address of permitably furthering fair housing, which adds information to chapter six, I apologize, not chapter four, but to chapter six of the background report regarding trends and patterns related to homelessness, disaster-driven displacement, and racially concentrated areas of affluence and access to opportunity. the discussion of the inventory of land suitable for residential development is revised to provide more information regarding approved and pending projects, the site criteria and assumptions for the vacant and underutilized sites, including criteria and assumptions for underutilized and non-vacant sites, accessory dwelling units, realistic capacity and public owned sites, and also to expand the discussion of the suitability and availability of infrastructure. The discussion of zoning for a variety of housing types is also modified to provide additional information related to emergency shelters, housing for agricultural employees, permanent supportive housing, and mobile homes and manufactured homes. And then also modifications to the housing plan to address these various revisions as well. Information is added to Chapter 3 of the background report regarding land use controls, the design review process and findings and constraints on housing for persons with disabilities. The discussion of assisted housing at risk of conversion is also updated to address the status of 408 B Street and to modify program to to ensure that the city complies with the state's requirements for at risk units. And then throughout the housing plan, programs have been modified to provide more information regarding how the programs will be implemented to ensure that the timelines are clear, that they are committing the city to measurable actions and objectives. The programs 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 19, and 21 were modified in response to state comments. And then program 20 was added to address infrastructure. |
| 00:35:36.42 | Unknown | Sure. |
| 00:35:36.93 | Beth Thompson | And then following the direction of the city council at the final adoption of the housing elements. Program four will also be modified to reflect the specific sites that are included in the adopted housing element. |
| 00:35:53.18 | Unknown | And. |
| 00:35:53.82 | Beth Thompson | In addition to adopting the element, taking action on the element. We also want to ensure that the The recommendation tonight also includes clarifications to the element because this has been there are a number of sites that are up for consideration. We do want to make sure we go through the element and ensure that it's internally consistent so that the background report and the housing plan are both modified to reflect the final sites that are decided upon and then also ensuring that program for specifies the acreage is allowable densities and anticipated units that are committed to rezoning based on the final inventory. and opportunity sites. And with that, I would be happy to answer any questions regarding the housing element update. |
| 00:36:35.45 | Mayor Blaustein | Thank you very much, Beth. I just wanted to give the members of the working group an opportunity to I believe you did. to. |
| 00:36:45.04 | Joan Cox | Thank you, Mayor. I wanted to weigh in regarding the sites for consideration on slide 16. of the PowerPoint, if you could share that. Um, One of the sites that we had recommended for consideration was site 72. at 2656 Bridgeway, Um, with a potential for 21 units. That's the Avatar building. And then the site at site number 305 at 2650 bridgeway. This says potential units 22. The developer has provided renderings for 42 units at that site. And I understand Beth, you may have a reason for reducing that number. I wanted to be sure that we did include Opportunity Site 72 at 2656 Bridgeway. |
| 00:37:45.94 | Joan Cox | Just to clarify that is just to modify the record as submitted by the working group. Correct. That was the recommendation of the working group. We've been going back and forth so much over the weekend. So apologies for any clerical errors. |
| 00:38:01.23 | Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 00:38:01.24 | Joan Cox | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:38:02.80 | Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 00:38:03.40 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 00:38:03.47 | Mayor Blaustein | Okay, at this time, I'm gonna open it up first and hand it over to chair Luxembourg to take questions from the planning commission. |
| 00:38:08.91 | Jill Hoffman | Sorry, Mayor, may I turn in? Sorry, please, Council Member Kellman, I couldn't see you. Yeah, no problem. So thank you. I want to really give a huge thank you to |
| 00:38:10.59 | Mayor Blaustein | Amen. |
| 00:38:18.19 | Jill Hoffman | Brandon and Sergio and Bath and Councilmember Cox. We worked around the clock, I think, this weekend to try to get this in order. You guys were amazing and really, really appreciate the quick turnaround, the planning commissioners who helped us with all of this. It's really a huge lift. Apologies to those where we do have some inconsistencies like this. We just were in real time trying to remedy them. So thank you, Councilmember Cox. I also just want to mention that State 52, which is City Hall, is something that the Planning Commission did. recommend removing. You know, we had already submitted everything to Council or pardon me to be posted and was difficult to make as you see additional changes. It's not the inclination of the working group to keep that, but we wanted to make sure there was a sort of a placeholder for the community to have a thorough conversation around this since it's city-owned property. So I just wanted to clarify that if you see some inconsistencies, Councilman Cox already addressed two of them, so I just wanted to address that one as well. So thank you to everybody and look forward to the conversation. |
| 00:39:20.99 | Mayor Blaustein | Thank you, Councilman. And I reiterate, thank you very much to the working group and to the members of staff who spent several hours over their weekend. putting this together so that we would be able to review and adopt this evening. Okay, so I'm now going to turn it over to Chair Luxembourg to moderate the questions from the Planning Commission. |
| 00:39:36.40 | Chair Luxembourg | Thank you, Mayor Blavstein. So while we're here for the Planning Commission's part this evening, and we will hold a public hearing on behalf of the Planning Commission, we made a recommendation last Wednesday to the City Council. And tonight there is some additional information that comes out of the HCD comments, which we have this evening. So as we ask our questions related to that, we will end up at the end after the public hearing doing one of three things. We either will have a resolution recommending with modifications from what we had last Wednesday to the city council for adoption. We potentially could have recommendation for a denial. And the third option is if we feel that we need additional time, we could continue this to a date certain and review it at those times. So those are three options. Obviously, if we can resolve any questions and issues, we would like to recommend to move forward. And that's what we're going to be doing now. So what I'd like to do is each of the members can have questions with Beth, and then we will open it up for a public hearing. And then we'll hear comments. and then we will come back to the commission's part of this and put a resolution on the floor based on what we're hearing from both the answers to questions and from the public comments that we receive. And then we wouldING OF THE PUBLIC, AND THEN THEY WILL TAKE THEIR ACTION. SO WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO OPEN IT UP FOR COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS OF BETH THOMPSON FROM DE NOVO, AND I'LL START WITH COMMISSIONER FELLER, IF WE COULD. |
| 00:41:38.95 | Mayor Blaustein | Chair Lexenberg, just a point of word, the City Council will also be asking questions of staff after you ask your questions and then we'll open it up for public hearing for public comment and then comment from the Planning Commission. Does that. |
| 00:41:48.20 | Chair Luxembourg | Okay. |
| 00:41:48.91 | Mayor Blaustein | That's... |
| 00:41:50.29 | Chair Luxembourg | That sounds like a better approach. I appreciate that Mayor Blasdeen. The other thing is if we get into any detailed discussion of specific sites, if we're going side by side, we will need to segment this for any questions about conflicts of interest. And with that, before we do that, I WANT EACH OF THE COUNCIL, EACH OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONER MEMBERS TO INDICATE ANY EXPARTE COMMUNICATIONS THAT THEY MAY HAVE HAD WITH REGARD TO THIS AND ANY POTENTIAL CONFLICTS THEY HAVE WITH THIS. SO WITH THAT, DIRECTOR PHIPS, IF YOU COULD ASK EACH OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONER MEMBERS IF THEY HAVE ANY EXPARTE COMMUNICATIONS. |
| 00:41:53.98 | Unknown | Well, |
| 00:42:39.12 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you, Chair Luxenberg. Yeah, per Chair's comment, if Commissioners would like to share any ex-parte communications, I will open the floor. Take care. |
| 00:42:47.41 | Sergio Rudin | Thank you. |
| 00:42:47.55 | Brandon Phipps | Uh, |
| 00:42:47.90 | Sergio Rudin | community development director i don't think we actually need to announce uh ex-party communications since this is a legislative action so there is no need to announce ex-party communications for this uh secondly um with respect to conflicts i would recommend that if there is discussion of individual sites and we segment the decision at that time. So as soon as it becomes apparent that we're going to be discussing individual sites, I would recommend the chair pause for a moment, invite commissioners to state whether they have any conflicts with that particular site and then continue on. and commissioners can recuse themselves at that time. |
| 00:43:27.17 | Chair Luxembourg | Thank you City Attorney of Rudin. That's enlightening, so that's helpful. With that, I will go to Commissioner Feller for any questions about Thompson. |
| 00:43:39.57 | Commissioner Feller | Thank you, Chair Lefsenberg. And thank you to the City Council Working Group and to staff. I know that everybody was working hard over the weekend and it's no small task. to do this. I know that well. So thank you for that. Beth, I just have a couple questions and some of this is just to get on the record. Because I know much of this was done in real time. But you have your slide 16 that we were just looking at. We don't need to put that back up. but it was the sites for consideration And I want to make sure that we understand that that chart supersedes what is in the element background report on page HBR 113, which is a slightly different matrix of calculations for the inventory of sites. And Um, If you can clarify that real quick, then I'll move on to a following question. |
| 00:44:43.75 | Beth Thompson | Correct, and let me just pop open the exact page you're referencing to make sure I'm referencing this specific page. |
| 00:44:56.81 | Beth Thompson | Just one minute while my page jumps there. So the. the sites that are summarized. Yes. |
| 00:45:05.70 | Commissioner Feller | So slide 17 versus HBR 113. |
| 00:45:08.52 | Beth Thompson | Bye. Correct. So the slight, the HBR 113 is a little different. a little different and basically sites 2700 Bridgeway and 3001 Bridgeway were included in the calculations on that page. So those would be removed. |
| 00:45:20.42 | Commissioner Feller | Perfect. I assume that I just want to make sure we're all on the same page here as I asked the next question, and that is The calculations on slide 17, which I'll refer to as sort of the current current calculations, if I can call it that. I want to understand if these calculations include any units that have already been approved as of July, 2022 by the community development department. |
| 00:45:50.12 | Beth Thompson | So for these sites on slide 16, these are the opportunity sites. So those don't include any. But when you go to slide 17, which has the totals, that includes sites that have been approved and permitted by the city and the community development departments in the process of double checking their records to make sure that if we have any missing approved projects, that we add those to the inventory and then if for any reason any projects have been removed that those are removed. But I would expect those to be very minimal adjustments. |
| 00:46:22.85 | Commissioner Feller | Okay, and so the line you're looking at is... the one that says approved permitted projects and you're breaking them down per income level. Is that correct? |
| 00:46:31.00 | Beth Thompson | Correct. Correct. |
| 00:46:33.60 | Commissioner Feller | Okay. In the work that the city council working group did I just wanna level set on the recommendation from the planning commission about the units per acre was that calculation included in what the city council working group did, or do they have a modification to that? |
| 00:46:54.70 | Beth Thompson | So they do not have a modification so that that same assumption, that base assumption that the planning commission used was also included in all of the city council calculations. |
| 00:47:04.30 | Commissioner Feller | Okay, great, thank you for that. And, um, Let's see. I had one other question here. I believe that When the planning commission working group was coordinating with you to for our January 25th hearing, The Avatar property 2656 bridge was in our calculation. |
| 00:47:30.51 | Beth Thompson | That was correct in your calculation. And that was actually also in the previous inventory as well. So there had been some confusion as to which parcel we'd included, but that has been included. |
| 00:47:41.24 | Commissioner Feller | Okay. And then, site number 302, I'm looking on slide 16 here, it's the last site on that particular matrix. Yeah. Obviously, the general plan working group strongly recommended water-based housing to be considered down in this area, which I certainly support. This is talking about the potential for water-based housing Can you just clarify if that's sort of marina-based housing or if that is floating home opportunities. |
| 00:48:14.31 | Beth Thompson | That's a difficult, I might defer to Council Members Kelman and Cox, but I would anticipate that this would be something similar to Galilee Harbor, where it would be like an actual planned community that would serve sort of the, you know, working class or the workforce of Sausalito. |
| 00:48:32.50 | Commissioner Feller | Okay, great. Okay. I appreciate that. um, Okay. I believe those are the majority of the questions. One last one and that is regarding the buffer. Can you comment on the buffer because part of what the planning commission working group did, and obviously we had a lot more time than the city council working group did to work through some of this and digest it. A lot of what we were doing is going back through every single site and scoring it based on the site suitability criteria, which is Appendix C. And by doing so, really de-risking the city from any potential of issues with not having viable sites as part of the housing. So that's why our buffer was slightly lower. Can you just comment on what you would recommend? |
| 00:49:29.24 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 00:49:29.30 | Commissioner Feller | Thank you. And, |
| 00:49:29.96 | Beth Thompson | as a buffer. |
| 00:49:30.69 | Commissioner Feller | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:49:31.35 | Beth Thompson | So it is nice to have a slightly larger buffer than what we ended up with. And one of the things we can do, so we had adjusted the assumptions for the moderate and above moderate income units to show. So HCD allows you to show more very low and low income units on your sites with those higher densities. So we can readjust our assumptions a bit to include a few more very low and low income units on some of those sites that meet that larger than a half acre, less than 10 acre criteria that will be zoned to allow the 49 to 70 units per acre. So we can make some adjustments to those assumptions to increase the buffer. at the very low low income range. And that would of course be taken out of a few of the moderate and above moderate income units. But your total buffer is great and you have plenty of capacity on the sites that are designated under those higher intensities under both the Planning Commission and Working Group recommendations. |
| 00:50:26.70 | Commissioner Feller | Okay, I appreciate that. Thank you. And thank you, Chair Luxenberg. |
| 00:50:31.66 | Chair Luxembourg | Thank you, Commissioner Fowler. Commissioner Saad, do you have any questions about from DeNova at this time? |
| 00:50:39.25 | Commissioner Saad | Thank you. Thank you, Chair Fowler. Thank you, Chair Luxenberg. I'll get used to it. Thank you very much for the opportunity. Thank you, Beth, for the presentation and thank you to all my colleagues and to City Council as well. Commissioner Feller did ask a few of the ones, so I won't belabor the same questions I did have. A question on The surplus land, I'm I'm just curious if you can maybe explain because what I'm looking at is saying that the city does not currently have any city on land as surplus as defined by the government code. And then it, we, you know, we're mentioning in some of these, potential changes that A few sites are up. A few city owned sites could be opportunity sites. And I'm just unclear City Council's direction or what your understanding Beth is, are we seeing that those city owned sites that are on the list. will be considered surplus land or can you clarify that? |
| 00:51:44.42 | Beth Thompson | Correct. So basically, the city does not currently have sites that are designated surplus lands. However, in order for those opportunity sites that have been identified by the city to be developed, it's anticipated that those sites would be designated surplus. Now, surplus doesn't mean that the site has to be made available for sale. It can be made available for a long-term lease, which, you know, like the city leases its other buildings on its other properties. So those can be made available for a long-term lease through the surplus lands act. And then those, the city inches a notice to developers, affordable housing developers requesting the requesting proposals for development of the sites. And so there's a whole process that the surplus lands act lays out for disposition of surplus land. So it's anticipated that those city owned properties would become surplus lands and made available through that process. |
| 00:52:37.65 | Commissioner Saad | I see, okay. Thank you for that explanation. And then just one follow up, because I did have the same question along the lines of, the water based housing being a marina. Can you just clarify for myself and the public, if it were to be something similar to Galilee, is that also Do we need BCDC there or is that still within the jurisdiction just of city of Sausalito? that would go through BCDC as well. Thank you. I think those are all the questions I have at the moment. Thank you, Chair Luxembourg. |
| 00:53:13.17 | Chair Luxembourg | Commissioner Saad, thank you for those questions. Commissioner Graff, do you have questions about from Tim Noble? |
| 00:53:21.45 | Commissioner Graff | No, I don't have any questions right now. Thank everybody for all the the work that's gone into this. Um, Some of the questions I had have already been addressed. I'm good. Thank you. |
| 00:53:38.47 | Chair Luxembourg | Thank you, Commissioner Graff. Vice Chair Juniors, do you have questions from Beth and Denevar? |
| 00:53:44.99 | Vice Chair Junius | No questions for Beth, thank you. |
| 00:53:47.59 | Chair Luxembourg | Okay, thank you. I only have one question, Beth. Councilor Kelman talked about the city hall that that was put back on just to have some public discussion. If that were to be taken off, as far as the buffers are concerned, even though it's always better to have more buffers, there is capacity, if that came off, there is capacity within the buffers to not make any other changes, even though it'd be better to have more buffers. Is that correct? |
| 00:54:17.83 | Joan Cox | There is capacity. Excuse me. I could not hear that question. Beth, could you possibly repeat or summarize that question? I can hear you, but I'm not able to hear you. |
| 00:54:18.70 | Beth Thompson | that you're |
| 00:54:28.65 | Joan Cox | Chair. Luxembourg. |
| 00:54:30.76 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, sorry, let me, is there a way to turn up the sound in this room? Okay, so we're at max. All right, thank you. |
| 00:54:36.43 | Beth Thompson | So Chair Luxenberg asked if the City Hall site is removed, if that would be accommodated by the buffers. And there is capacity in the buffers. And there's also capacity to increase the MLK site by 10 units. And that would keep you at the same total number of units. So you could do either. We could readjust our affordability assumptions on some of the other sites to maintain a buffer or increase capacity at the MLK site. And that would still leave the MLK site below the number of units that were in the Planning Commission recommendation. So it would still have an overall reduction in capacity. |
| 00:55:13.30 | Chair Luxembourg | Thank you, Beth. With that, are there any further questions from any of the commissioners before I turn it back over to Mayor Blonstead? Not seeing any, Mayor Blaustein, if you want to proceed with councilor questions to Beth from De Novo. Thank you. |
| 00:55:33.86 | Mayor Blaustein | Thank you very much, Chair Luxembourg and members of the Planning Commission. So I will now open it up to the City Council for questions of staff. Councilmember Cox. |
| 00:55:43.91 | Joan Cox | I had one question. Beth. We do have a significant buffer in the chart that you provided for us on slide 17. Um, Is it if we do not use opportunity sites during this cycle, can we continue to list them in our next housing element cycle if they aren't utilized or developed during this cycle? |
| 00:56:10.07 | Beth Thompson | Yes, you can reuse your sites when you reuse sites that are vacant and have been used in two previous cycles or underutilized and been from a previous or from one previous cycle. You are required to ensure that those are designated to allow to allow specific Eligible affordable projects that have at least 20 units by right that meets certain requirements and that they have to be rezoned to allow at least 20 units per acre. So you'll meet the 20 unit per acre. requirement because of the zoning proposed for those sites. And then you would just have to ensure that those sites are zoned to allow by right development for affordable projects with 20% or more units. And that's currently a requirement of state law, and it affects a couple of your sites that are carried forward as well this planning period. |
| 00:56:56.83 | Joan Cox | Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. you |
| 00:56:58.23 | Mayor Blaustein | Councilmember Hoffman had a question. |
| 00:57:02.16 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 00:57:02.20 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 00:57:02.23 | Joan Cox | Bye. |
| 00:57:02.38 | Mayor Blaustein | Yes. |
| 00:57:02.80 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 00:57:04.34 | Jill Hoffman | I saw Councilmember Hellman's hand was up. And since she was on a working group, it might be. a clarifying question, maybe she should go first. And I'm happy to follow up. I'm happy to go either way, but that just seems to make sense. |
| 00:57:16.74 | Jill Hoffman | every moment. |
| 00:57:17.72 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:57:17.74 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, thank you, Councilmember Hoffman. Just a quick one. So Beth, we already asked you about the Avatar site. Moving forward, how are we going to refer to it? Is that going to be site 72, or what is the site number for that? I have a lot of people. |
| 00:57:29.09 | Beth Thompson | Steve, let me just |
| 00:57:29.86 | Jill Hoffman | Bye. |
| 00:57:29.97 | Beth Thompson | pop up the actual map so I can look and tell you what the exact number is. God. |
| 00:57:35.53 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:57:35.56 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 00:57:35.57 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. And while you're looking at that, I'll just repeat, we tried very, very hard. We know there'll be some inconsistencies with additional documents. So Beth and the working group are working from this one particular slide 16, and we're just gonna try to make sure Absolutely clear for everybody. |
| 00:57:52.37 | Beth Thompson | And so yes, that is Site 72. |
| 00:57:55.52 | Mayor Blaustein | Just as a point of order on that, though, Site 72 was also included in the Planning Commission's recommendations, so it wouldn't have needed to stand alone in a separate slide. Correct. |
| 00:58:05.51 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. All right, that's it, Mayor. Thank you. |
| 00:58:09.26 | Jill Hoffman | Councilmember Hoffman? Okay, thank you. |
| 00:58:11.25 | Jill Hoffman | So, |
| 00:58:11.97 | Unknown | follow. |
| 00:58:13.46 | Jill Hoffman | . |
| 00:58:13.49 | Unknown | It's like this kind of, this is. My microphone is very loud. |
| 00:58:18.89 | Jill Hoffman | Um, Oh, I can, because we turned up the, anyway. |
| 00:58:22.66 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:58:22.67 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:58:22.69 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:58:22.72 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 00:58:22.78 | Unknown | Okay, so. I'm psyching to this one. |
| 00:58:26.44 | Unknown | Thank you. It's a good thing. |
| 00:58:27.20 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:58:27.21 | Jill Hoffman | Bye. |
| 00:58:27.28 | Unknown | Bye-bye. Thank you. you |
| 00:58:28.55 | Unknown | Sorry. |
| 00:58:28.97 | Unknown | you |
| 00:58:32.60 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, that seems more, much better. |
| 00:58:34.39 | Jill Hoffman | . |
| 00:58:34.42 | Unknown | you know. |
| 00:58:34.47 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 00:58:34.50 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:58:34.55 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you so much. |
| 00:58:34.84 | Mayor Blaustein | AT THE END OF THE END |
| 00:58:34.93 | Jill Hoffman | Bye. |
| 00:58:35.16 | Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 00:58:35.67 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, so let's go back to site 52, which is city hall. So have I got it right, Beth, that if we remove site 52, which we're talking about the 10, only 10 units on that site. And it looks like on my chart, that's five units are very low and five units are below. Even if we remove that site, we're still well above on the surplus. Correct. Is that right? Okay. And we talked a little bit about the, |
| 00:58:59.73 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 00:59:05.16 | Jill Hoffman | site suitability scoring for the planning commission plan. Have we done a similar site suitability criteria scoring for the revised city council plan? And if so, how do those scores match up? |
| 00:59:21.40 | Beth Thompson | So the added sites for the Planning Commission and for the Council Working Group, there is a very detailed Appendix D2. And those additional sites were not reviewed through Appendix D2. However, we have also mapped the various constraints and we have the assessor data. So we did look at that, but we didn't go through the formal scoring process for those sites. And so they are generally comparable to the other sites in the city. And I don't think there is a single site that if we rescore them would score worse than the sites on the inventory. So they're generally in line with the sites that you're seeing. But we didn't go through the full you know, 15 or 20 items scoring process for these. |
| 01:00:03.60 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. Thank you for that. And so the city council revised plan Um, It. delivers more sites and in theory, I mean, I think in practicality would have a higher site scoring overall. |
| 01:00:22.13 | Beth Thompson | I would say that it delivers more sites and overall, I They probably would be close. I don't know that one would be higher than the other. There's a lot of nuances and different criteria, so it doesn't always come down to the exact score of each site that we'd have to run through and see an average site. But I would anticipate they would be comparable. |
| 01:00:40.17 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thank you. And to follow up on council member Cox's question, Thank you. including sites in your housing element above the required number. So our required number is 6724. And on the sheet that you provided, there's an excess of 169. So those 169 sites or whatever excess, however the excess you want to, it doesn't matter the site. It's not site specific. It's just the number excess. But if you include that site in your plan, there are consequences. on future rounds of housing elements and how you can use those sites. Is that correct? Thank you. |
| 01:01:20.47 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 01:01:20.57 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 01:01:20.59 | Beth Thompson | And one of the things that there's some, flexibility with. When the city had embarked upon this process, the city had anticipated it would adopt the housing element and rezone sites concurrently at the same meeting. So there was an anticipation that the city would conduct rezoning simultaneously. Now, under state law, if you adopt your housing element by the 31st and it's found to be in substantial compliance within 120 days of the due date, or actually if it's found to be in substantial compliance within 120 days of the due date, you actually have three years for that rezoning. it was determined that it's better to separate those processes, go through just the housing element. You'll have this, Group of opportunity sites you can select from for rezoning, but not every single opportunity site necessarily has to be rezoned. So there will be some ability on the part of the city when you're going through that rezoning process to make some modifications as long as you're still within that total amount of units to meet 724 units. But you have some flexibility within those opportunity sites. So you have to rezone enough sites to get to the minimum, but you can leave some of that buffer for rezoning later in the cycle. So that'll be something that the city can look at and determine exactly how it wants to proceed. And that, you'll be narrowing that down as you go through the specific rezoning process. But the opportunity sites give you a menu of sites that you can choose from for rezoning and it will, because you have a buffer, You won't need 100% of those sites, but you will need probably 80 to 90% of those sites. |
| 01:02:58.60 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, thank you. And you're talking about 90% of the surplus just so that you have flexibility in how we address housing going forward under our own plan. Correct. Okay. And my last question. So for the opportunity site 302, the address is just listed in the bay, but can you tell us where that I'm assuming you're talking about one of the underwater parcels that the city owns. Can you tell us what that's adjacent to or just a general |
| 01:03:27.20 | Beth Thompson | Yes. And, |
| 01:03:27.62 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. Thank you. And. |
| 01:03:29.31 | Beth Thompson | It is, let me pop it up. So. Let's see, let me give you a good... the in-bay description's a little It is pulling it up on the map. Is it the word right outside of? Let's see. Let's see. So it is the site that is Just adjacent the open water that's adjacent to the Sausalito Cruising Club. So there are some in-water facilities there. So it would be just one parcel over from that. To the north or south? to the south. So, Galilee Harbor is to the north, so it's to the south. |
| 01:04:14.82 | Beth Thompson | Okay, thank you. |
| 01:04:17.55 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:04:18.57 | Mayor Blaustein | Vice Mayor Sobieski, do you have questions for staff at this time? Yes. |
| 01:04:21.30 | Ian Sobieski | Beth, could you put that slide back up with the counts? |
| 01:04:21.81 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 01:04:25.28 | Ian Sobieski | these. |
| 01:04:25.81 | Beth Thompson | Yes, let me pop that up for you. And let me just change my view so it's easy for you to see when. and it pops up. |
| 01:04:39.53 | Beth Thompson | All right. Can you see that? |
| 01:04:40.93 | Ian Sobieski | I can. Thank you. So this is the recommendation of my colleagues in the working group. |
| 01:04:46.82 | Beth Thompson | Correct. |
| 01:04:47.86 | Ian Sobieski | So what was the surplus in what we submitted to HDD last year? |
| 01:04:53.28 | Beth Thompson | Let me just pull that up right now. |
| 01:05:03.17 | Beth Thompson | I apologize. Just let me open up one more document because that's in a separate... separate set of documents that I have. So let's see. |
| 01:05:11.98 | Commissioner Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:05:12.08 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 01:05:12.11 | Commissioner Feller | Thank you. |
| 01:05:20.01 | Beth Thompson | So... It's actually shown in, I think, Program 4 of the House of you |
| 01:05:26.39 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:05:31.01 | Beth Thompson | So the surplus was 148 units. |
| 01:05:34.67 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, so on the basis of the work, I remember when the number of surplus units has gone up by 21. |
| 01:05:42.35 | Beth Thompson | Correct. |
| 01:05:43.06 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. So- |
| 01:05:45.54 | Beth Thompson | Actually, I apologize. There were some. So 148 was the public review draft. There were some modifications made to the public review draft. And so the one that went to HCD actually had 104 units. That would be table 58 of the HCD review draft document. So that had 104. So this has actually increased it by 65 surplus units. |
| 01:06:06.85 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, so just to underscore that what we sent to HCV at 104, a buffer of 104. Now we have a buffer of 169. And then was each category also increased or were some categories decreased? |
| 01:06:26.77 | Beth Thompson | No. So the draft that was sent to the state actually had a lot of excess capacity in the lower income categories, but didn't meet the above moderate requirement. And it was the anticipation when that was prepared that upon HCD review, there would be a number of sites that would shift from the very low and low to the above moderate that they would be disallowed. And so and we've actually done that. There have been some units due to like their comments on the smaller sites that have shifted to the upper units. So it was anticipated that that was not necessarily a true buffer at the time. |
| 01:06:35.98 | Commissioner Saad | environment. |
| 01:07:00.82 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, so just to say that again, so there's been some shift away from low and very low units to moderate and above moderate units. |
| 01:07:07.43 | Beth Thompson | Cracked. |
| 01:07:07.91 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. Okay. So what happens now if we accept this as presented approve it today, send it to HCD. I know there's a 60 day period in which they have to respond. And we have to have a certified element. in 120 days. That's the final drop dead deadline. Let me just start there. If we missed the 120 day deadline, What happens? What are the penalties if we miss that 120 day deadline? |
| 01:07:40.75 | Beth Thompson | So if you miss the 120-day deadline, you have to rezone sites within one year instead of three years. And that puts a huge burden on the city because a number of your sites require ballot approval, ballot measures. that will be a big scramble on the part of the city to get to that one year rezoning. You are also open to the, it's been called the builder's remedy, the housing accountability act in which the city would be required to process. If you don't have a housing element that's in substantial compliance, Um, that's adopted by the due date. So actually by tomorrow, you are open to developers submitting applications under the Housing Accountability Act. If you also don't have a compliant housing element, you're open to a lawsuit. And then there's also a number of state funds that rely on a certified housing element. So there are various funding programs you wouldn't be eligible for. That lack of eligibility, however, would only affect you during that time that you're not in compliance. So it would really only affect programs that you're in the process right now of actively seeking funding under. |
| 01:08:48.08 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, so just to say back to you again, The biggest, the two nuclear weapons in there, the things you're most afraid of is the builder's remedy, which would kick in if we didn't pass something today or by tomorrow. Right. And then. And then if we don't get the whole thing done within 120 days, then we have this one year rezoning window. Does What happens in terms of the builder's remedy after 120 days? Does that kick in or is that not an issue? |
| 01:09:16.04 | Beth Thompson | That is predicated on or that's based on when you actually adopt your housing element in terms of if it's before or after the deadline. So until you have a housing element in substantial compliance, you would be open to that. And I'll defer to also anything that the city attorney would like to weigh in with on that topic. |
| 01:09:34.87 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, so what I'm trying to get at a little bit is just this obviously this is why we're meeting in this very special session when um my colleagues lost their week actually the whole city staff lost their weekend and the planning commission had a huge amount of work. Everyone's scrambling to avoid this builder's remedy. a penalty. We want to make sure we don't uh, anything we're incorrect and at this point I'll decrease the chance of not meeting our 120 day deadline. So when we give this to HCD. What do you think is going to happen? as you see it. |
| 01:10:12.01 | Beth Thompson | Well, HCD reviews the housing element. Typically, once they've done their initial review, they are more available for review and comment during their subsequent draft. So I anticipate they may ask clarifying questions and there will be an opportunity to submit revisions to HCD. State law doesn't speak to when revisions to the adopted housing element have to be made available to the public prior to submission to HCD. But typically, they like to see that the city does make those any revisions available for public review and consideration. So we wouldn't just have a back and forth discourse with HCD. We would make sure that proposed revisions are shared with the public on the city's website and HCD would also review those concurrently. And then, you know, I'm going to be a little bit As you see in attachment three, a lot of effort has gone into addressing the state's comments. So the state... had a number of comments and there have been a number of changes. don't have that crystal ball to know exactly where HCD may wish to see additional changes, but we're hopeful that there would be the chance to make those revisions. The resolution before you tonight does allow staff to make some modifications, I believe, with oversight of the City Council Working Group to make some modifications to address HCD Commons. A lot of times HCD asks for clarifying information or additional background information that doesn't necessarily change the trajectory of the city. And so it's more, a lot of times HCD asks for clarifying information or additional background information that doesn't necessarily change the trajectory of the city. And so it's more just a lot of supplemental information to substantiate the information in the housing element. So a lot of that information doesn't really need to go through a whole separate set of hearings and everything for those revisions. So that's provided to ensure that there's some flexibility in addressing HCD's comments during their review period. And of course, staff and our team will be very proactive in contacting HCD and talking to them about their comments. And we did discuss some comments with them on Friday too, just to ensure that we were on the right path forward with the changes we were making. |
| 01:12:07.46 | Ian Sobieski | Okay. So the key thing is to do something today that's that we have put our best foot forward. you're saying there's going to be a they're going to be back and forth revisions with HCD over the coming weeks. with this wrapping up in 120 days. They're obliged to get back to us within 60 days. Is that right? |
| 01:12:26.27 | Beth Thompson | Correct, they have a 60 day comment period. |
| 01:12:28.57 | Ian Sobieski | And then after that, is that our last bite at the apple? So they get another 60 days after we submit a formal revision? |
| 01:12:35.27 | Beth Thompson | So if you resubmit during the review period and they have enough time to consider the changes during their review period, typically they'll consider those and wrap that into their review. But if things are submitted too close to the end of the review period, then yes, you would need to resubmit for a new 60-day review period. |
| 01:12:52.14 | Ian Sobieski | a review. OK. So I guess what I'm getting at is, um, Here's the bottom line. What do you think the probability is that HECD is going to certify the housing element as in this current draft? |
| 01:13:07.46 | Beth Thompson | Um, In the exact current draft with with the changes that are recommended, I think there's probably like an 85% probability, but with revisions that we would make during that review period, I would say I would hope |
| 01:13:15.11 | Jenny Silva | Peace. |
| 01:13:22.48 | Beth Thompson | I'd say maybe a 95%. probability. the city is very limited in terms of sites so that, you know, the city doesn't have green fields where you can just go out and identify these sites to accommodate your arena. So, One of the more difficult areas to substantiate to HCD is the viability of your underutilized size to be redeveloped during the planning period. And so I think that we've shown a lot of information identifying why those are the best sites in the city. HCD may want to see more information. And so we'll continue to address that. |
| 01:13:57.94 | Ian Sobieski | So related to that, because this is what we're deciding, We have 169 unit surplus here. What do you think the percentage odds are Same question of acceptance if, say, we reduce the number of surplus units to 100. versus 169. How does that affect the probability? So initial and final success. |
| 01:14:19.42 | Beth Thompson | I think it makes it less likely. I can't throw a number on it, but I definitely think if you get a lot tighter with your buffer, HCD may become concerned. So it's nice to have the larger, the buffer, the better in HCD's view. |
| 01:14:33.78 | Ian Sobieski | The larger the buffer, the better. |
| 01:14:35.52 | Beth Thompson | Yes. |
| 01:14:36.82 | Ian Sobieski | Well, but yeah, I know we need some sort of guidance. I mean, you're the professional and so You know, obviously, I mean, I'm sure the larger the buffer, the better, and the smaller the worse. Can you give any guidance? Because this is kind of what's at issue here today is whether the buffer is 64, 100, 169 or 212, uh, So you've said 85 to 95 with 169. And you can just give your professional opinion, like a doctor who gives you a chance on surgery. What do you think the sensitivity is? in terms of success. |
| 01:15:11.01 | Beth Thompson | I would think you would want to have a 20% buffer is nice. I think it shows a lot of capacity for... for revision and modification and flexibility, especially if any sites are used in a different manner or plans change for sites. I think that gives you some flexibility. So I'd want to stay it around. 20%. So a little over 140 units. I think you could come 169 is definitely a lot. So there's some, some ability to come down a bit, but I, I wouldn't want to go down too far. |
| 01:15:41.62 | Ian Sobieski | Okay. Then in the housing element, a cornerstone of the whole thing is, is this, 80% development formula that 80% of the sites are actually going to be developed unless I misunderstood what I thought I read. Is that true? |
| 01:15:57.50 | Beth Thompson | So it doesn't assume, so that's the realistic capacity assumption, and we've actually modified that a bit. So in our initial calculations, we assumed that sites would develop at 80% of capacity. HCD requires that we look at a realistic capacity so that we don't overestimate the number of units that would occur on a site. One of the changes that's been made to the overlays or the opportunity designations is that rather than only identifying a maximum designation, so we would be assuming 80% of that maximum would be designated, we're actually now requiring or the city would require a base density. So there's a minimum density that's required to be developed. And so that gets you more units per site. So that actually gets you like more like 84%. Let's see. So that gets you to like 88%. But it's not a percentage of the sites that have to develop. It's basically just a calculation that HCD requires to make sure you're not over counting |
| 01:16:47.28 | Unknown | You know, |
| 01:16:47.50 | Unknown | But... |
| 01:16:58.13 | Beth Thompson | the capacity of the sites. In practice, sites often develop at higher intensities. |
| 01:17:03.68 | Ian Sobieski | Well, I guess my question, which is, this is the important question, which is after we're successfully done with this certified housing element, we have to issue annual updates to the HCD. noting our progress against ARENA. And if our progress is insufficient, There are a whole other set of penalties that accrue. very substantial penalties that are draconian, including changes to ministerial approval processes, and to the cycle by which we have to do RENA, which could change from eight years to four years. But I don't actually know what those thresholds are. How many of the, what can the community expect if we designate this plan, 724 units plus 169 surplus, How many units are going to get actually under construction? Are we obliged to have under construction to avoid a penalty room HCV? in years three, four and five of the housing element. |
| 01:17:59.74 | Beth Thompson | So, To avoid the SB35 streamlining, you have to be on target halfway through your cycle in order to avoid applications that can be allowed under the SB 35 streamlining. And so HCD does a mid-cycle evaluation to determine whether or not you're on track. And so like for your previous housing element, you're not on track for all of your income categories. you're required to allow So yes, if you are on track halfway through the cycle when HCD does its review, then you would not be subject to those requirements. That's the primary... review HCD does to determine your consistency with your arena. So you're not obligated to produce the units, but yes, there are penalties if you're not in terms of, there are penalties in terms of your approval process if you're not on track. |
| 01:18:41.10 | Commissioner Feller | I mean, I think. |
| 01:18:41.18 | Ian Sobieski | I'll see you next time. |
| 01:18:49.79 | Ian Sobieski | So you're saying if in year four, We haven't actually had approvals, at least if not construction. of 362 dwellings. then we could face penalties from HCD for being out of compliance with this housing. |
| 01:19:04.44 | Beth Thompson | And it's not a penalty for being out of compliance. So this isn't a question of compliance, but it is a penalty for underproduction. |
| 01:19:12.65 | Ian Sobieski | Okay. And that penalty is potentially having to do the arena, another arena cycle. |
| 01:19:16.98 | Beth Thompson | No, it's not. There used to be a penalty that if you weren't adopted within 120 days, you shifted to a four-year cycle. That penalty has been removed and replaced with the one-year rezoning requirement. So there's currently no four-year cycle penalty. Yeah, you don't want to do this every four years. |
| 01:19:35.81 | Ian Sobieski | Well, but so what is the penalty if we're not on track? If we don't have If we have 112 units under construction are approved in year four. What's the penalty we face, if any? |
| 01:19:46.40 | Beth Thompson | The penalty is the, you have to allow units in a streamlined manner pursuant to SB 35. The city attorney may have some input regarding that that requirement as well, so I once again will defer to them to interrupt and and let you know if there's additional penalties I'm missing, but that's the primary concern. |
| 01:20:07.35 | Mayor Blaustein | I THINK Councilmember Hoffman had a follow-on question to your question, so I just wanted to make sure she got to weigh in. |
| 01:20:15.77 | Jill Hoffman | It's not really a follow on. It's a perhaps we should move on to public comment question. I mean, we have, I understand we have |
| 01:20:21.84 | Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 01:20:25.34 | Jill Hoffman | you know, |
| 01:20:26.65 | Mayor Blaustein | Right, but I'd like to allow Councilmember Sobieski to finish his line of questioning and then I'll ask questions as well. But yes, we will get to public comment as soon as, Councilmember Sobieski, do you have any questions on that? |
| 01:20:34.70 | Ian Sobieski | Thanks, Mayor. Yeah, just the summary of the penalty or the change that SB35 would cause if we fell into that regime, if we're not on track to actually build these units. |
| 01:20:44.89 | Beth Thompson | Correct, that would occur. And then I'll also note that if you're not- |
| 01:20:47.56 | Ian Sobieski | Can you just summarize what that is for people that don't know what would happen in that world if we fell into the FCP35 regime? |
| 01:20:56.08 | Beth Thompson | So basically it depends on the, your performance in the various income categories. And I'm just gonna pop up these specific, Let's see. So it'll be based on your reporting period. And I don't remember the exact percentages. So there's a streamlined ministerial approval process that would apply to developments that have certain percentages of affordability. And I will get back to that and let you know what that is once we get a little farther along. I think we did bring that up and did report on that to you at your July or May meeting of last year. And so let me just pull up that slide and I'll give you that information in a few minutes. |
| 01:21:37.06 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, but it's a version of the Builder's Armady, basically. It starts to streamline some processes into a ministerial process. |
| 01:21:43.99 | Beth Thompson | Very similar, but it does still rely on consistency with the general plan and zoning code. |
| 01:21:52.28 | Mayor Blaustein | Thank you, Vice Mayor. Okay, Council Member Cox, you had an additional question? |
| 01:21:57.76 | Joan Cox | Yes, Beth, is it true that it is important that we have adequate buffer because we have two of our opportunity zones that are subject to voter initiative in order to accomplish the proposed rezoning? |
| 01:22:12.12 | Beth Thompson | Yes, it is nice to have more of a buffer because yeah, if one of those doesn't go through, you're going to need to have to rethink what you're doing on your other sites. So that gives you a little more flexibility to respond to that. |
| 01:22:23.81 | Joan Cox | Okay, and then there was some question about noticing. We are adopting and addressing the state's comments in our... housing element today and are not seeking further HCD comments. And so does HCD require that we further post this draft? beyond the notice for this meeting. |
| 01:22:46.73 | Beth Thompson | No. So if you were not looking to adopt the housing element, but you were submitting a revised draft housing element to the state for their consideration, you are required to post that and make that available seven days before resubmitting it to HCD. But the plan is not to submit another draft for their review, but to actually address their comments, adopt it, and then submit it for their review of an adopted element. |
| 01:23:10.15 | Joan Cox | And did you confirm with HCD |
| 01:23:12.03 | Beth Thompson | you |
| 01:23:12.08 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:23:12.11 | Beth Thompson | I know. |
| 01:23:12.18 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:23:12.28 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 01:23:12.31 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:23:12.40 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:23:12.43 | Beth Thompson | of this process? We did. And their understanding was consistent with ours that there is no specific posting and noticing requirement for a housing element that's being submitted for adoption. So you were just subject to the state law and state requirements for a general plan amendment and noticing requirements for that. |
| 01:23:30.98 | Joan Cox | And this public hearing was properly noticed for amendment of the general plan. Is that correct? I believe. |
| 01:23:37.04 | Beth Thompson | So, yeah. |
| 01:23:37.42 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:23:37.48 | Beth Thompson | I'd love to hear. |
| 01:23:37.76 | Joan Cox | Bye. |
| 01:23:37.96 | Beth Thompson | I believe your city staff noticed it as in accordance with state law. All right, thank you. |
| 01:23:44.27 | Mayor Blaustein | Thank you very much, Beth. In the interest of moving things forward, I just had one additional question. With regards to public sites such as City Hall or MLK, could you just explain whether there's a different process for review from HCD for the rezoning or the use of those public sites? |
| 01:23:59.18 | Beth Thompson | There is a different process what they want to ensure is where you have public sites that you are going through the surplus lands act and so that you're complying with state law that relates to the disposition of public sites and once again the disposition is either the sale or long term lease so disposition kind of sounds like you're. disposing of them and no longer using them, but it's really, you can maintain them and lease them, but just the process you would go through to do that lease. |
| 01:24:24.96 | Mayor Blaustein | Just one more thing for the members of the public who are maybe new to this process. Could you just explain who HCD is and what HCD stands for quickly in two sentences? It's, |
| 01:24:34.58 | Beth Thompson | It is the State Department of Housing and Community Development, and they are the state agency tasked with reviewing housing elements and determining compliance with housing elements. They also administer a number of housing related grant funds and provide technical assistance on housing issues. |
| 01:24:48.91 | Mayor Blaustein | Great. Thank you very much. Okay. So let's, I'm going to pass it over to Commissioner Luxembourg to open up our first round of public comment and move to a public hearing at the planning commission level. A reminder that public comment will be limited to one minute and 30 seconds, but there will be a second opportunity for public comment when the city council opens their public hearing. So I'm going to turn it over now to Chair Luxembourg unless there are further questions. Just one more chance to the, to the council here before we move forward. Okay, seeing none, Chair Luxenberg, please. |
| 01:25:15.55 | Chair Luxembourg | Thank you, Mayor Bluffstein. So at this point, we're gonna allow public comment as the mayor indicated of one minute and 30 seconds. I encourage people that if there was a lot of comments, if somebody says something and you agree with them, you could just acknowledge you agree with them. You don't really need to repeat what somebody else has said if you just can say more succinctly, but again, you can use your full minute and 30 seconds that you can. You will also have another opportunity at the hearing shortly for the city council. So with that, I'm going to have Director Phipps help me figure out what who to call. And at this point, I am seeing uh i'm only seeing one hand at this time |
| 01:26:03.85 | Mayor Blaustein | City Clerk, could you remind members of the public how they might give public comment in both in the chamber and online at this time? |
| 01:26:09.87 | Walfred Solorzano | Yeah, I have some speakers, so I'll start with the people that signed up to speak first. So, well, the first person, Michael Van Walt. |
| 01:26:23.83 | Michael Van Walt | Is this where I stood? |
| 01:26:25.01 | Walfred Solorzano | Yes. |
| 01:26:26.11 | Michael Van Walt | Thank you. And let me just limit myself to, for the record, repeating what I have written to the mayor and the council and noting that this is, I know that it is not only my view, but that of many, many people that live in Sausalito. I live in Sausalito, care about our working waterfront, which provides jobs and indispensable services to many of us living in Sausalito, and more generally in Marin, and also support housing. where it makes most sense and does not harm or destroy our working waterfront. I therefore urge you to please vote to remove any residential sites from the heart of the marine ship. South of Harbor Drive. And thank you for having the courage to protect the marine ships and Sausalito's working waterfront. Thank you. |
| 01:27:31.36 | Chair Luxembourg | Thank you for your comment, Mr. Clerk. What is the next? |
| 01:27:31.53 | Michael Van Walt | Thank you. What is the next? |
| 01:27:37.42 | Chair Luxembourg | Yes. |
| 01:27:41.88 | Walfred Solorzano | David Holbrook? Not here anymore. Heather Wilcox. |
| 01:27:54.38 | Heather Wilcox | Hi, I am Heather Rook-Coxon, a member of Galley Harbor. And I just want to say I've lived here many, many years and I support building houses for low income people. But I think it's more appropriate rather than anything in the friendship, which needs to be preserved for the working waterfront and for artists like myself. and for the ways that so many boat and boat builders use from all over the Bay, including the fire, fire boat from the city. Anyway, I hope that you will consider that and thank you so much. |
| 01:28:33.04 | Chair Luxembourg | Thank you for your comments, Mr. Clerk. Who would the next speaker be? |
| 01:28:37.06 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 01:28:37.12 | Heather Wilcox | Oh, my God. |
| 01:28:37.21 | Walfred Solorzano | speak. |
| 01:28:38.80 | Chair Luxembourg | Can you hear me? It sounds like you're talking over me. Can you hear me? |
| 01:28:43.33 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 01:28:43.35 | Chair Luxembourg | Thank you. |
| 01:28:43.37 | Walfred Solorzano | I guess I can hear you. |
| 01:28:44.03 | Chair Luxembourg | Thank you. Okay, thank you. |
| 01:28:44.87 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 01:28:44.92 | Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 01:28:45.58 | Walfred Solorzano | you Thank you. |
| 01:28:45.78 | Mayor Blaustein | Hey, Chair Luxembourg, we're going to allow the city clerk to facilitate the calling of speakers for public comment. And then when, when they're completed, just the folks that are in the room. |
| 01:28:58.08 | Chair Luxembourg | Okay, Mayor Blasen, thank you. |
| 01:29:02.23 | Unknown | Good evening, I'm Kim Staubert. I'm the owner of Site 100. And what I'd like to convey to the planning commission and the city council is that I think it's important to allow property owners that want to build smaller, more affordable townhomes that are consistent with the community as opposed to large. overdeveloped ones in our R2 2.5 neighborhoods. And I realized that my site has been taken off. It is over 14,000 square foot site, a third of an acre. and What I don't want to see happen is somebody come in and take that site and build a building that's completely out of scale. with all the other existing homes, which is what happened next door to us. at 60, 62 million. Two huge homes were built larger than all of the other homes in the neighborhood and one person would have these odds in each of those. So I would encourage the Planning Commission and the City Council to please consider the homes that we would like to develop the ones with smaller homes. I don't know what you feel about. Thank you. |
| 01:30:26.10 | Chair Luxembourg | Thank you for your comments. next. |
| 01:30:28.08 | Walfred Solorzano | Speaker 2 |
| 01:30:44.29 | Jim Gerardo | I didn't quite understand the two comment periods. aspect. |
| 01:30:48.68 | Mayor Blaustein | There will be two opportunities to offer public comment right now we are facilitating the planning commissions public hearing on this item, and you can now give public comment to the planning commission, they will deliberate. We will take a recess. Then there'll be an opportunity to provide public comment again to the members of the City Council. |
| 01:31:04.16 | Jim Gerardo | Okay, I'll have probably the same comment to both, but my name is Jim Jarrod. I live at 927 Bridgeway with my wife, Denise, and we were requesting that the planning commission I remove sites 207, 208, 209 and 210, which is addresses 9-11 through 9-17. 925, 931, 933, and 927 Bridgeway from the housing plan. These were added on January 25th. just last week with the 45 second clip. during the five hour meeting, And no studies were presented regarding this and no justification was provided. At that time in our house, was included in this without even our knowledge. No one has ever contacted us about this and other houses They're added on 25th. And there was nothing in the commission reports that I saw, BEFORE THAT MEETING. SO I THINK THAT IT WAS DONE And these should be removed until there's more thought put into it. Just the removal of my home itself is not solving the issue. The issue is these four or five homes are added all at once. At the last minute without any comment, there's no site plan. You know, no information about it. I just think it should have more. VETTING PERIOD. I'll conclude by saying we just heard Ms. Thompson talk about a two-year process multiple rounds of comments. Thank you very much. but these were added only five days ago with no comments. |
| 01:32:42.96 | Walfred Solorzano | Next speaker is John Donovan. |
| 01:32:52.43 | John Donovan | Thank you. Mayor Council. Um, I'm John Donovan. I've lived in South City for quite a long time. The whole... housing thing here is going to affect me. |
| 01:33:03.02 | Unknown | in every single way. I don't know. That's my shot. right of, the site with And... service I don't understand if you're working for this. about it. 5% of all the building is going to directly affect me. and didn't look at the future. How's right? Maybe there's about 16 of them. Thank you. that surround the animal cage. that are going to be So that's a good question. |
| 01:33:42.17 | Chair Luxembourg | So, |
| 01:33:42.26 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:33:42.32 | Chair Luxembourg | Thank you. |
| 01:33:42.41 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:33:42.92 | Chair Luxembourg | Mr. City Clerk, this is coming out garbled. I don't know if it is for everybody, but we're not able to hear it. . Thank you. |
| 01:33:55.30 | Unknown | this time. you know. Thank you. It comes in 72. I'm going to see you later. I'm not sure how that's going to fit. to Thank you. structures all the way down. That's going to be really about any of that area as well. So I think that needs to be taken into consideration whether that is Thank you. you call me to there. It's good. you Thank you. |
| 01:34:30.06 | Mayor Blaustein | City Clerk, I'm hearing that there might be some issues with the vocal on Zoom. Planning Commissioners, are you able to hear the public commenters? |
| 01:34:37.73 | Unknown | No. |
| 01:34:37.93 | Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. No. |
| 01:34:38.70 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:34:38.89 | Mayor Blaustein | So is the mic, the public comment mic working in the arm? |
| 01:34:44.88 | Commissioner Feller | Madam Mayor, I believe if the speaker is too close to the microphone, it's guarded. |
| 01:34:51.40 | Mayor Blaustein | Great point. Okay, Commissioner Feller pointed out that when you're making a public comment in the room, make sure you're a little bit away from the microphone because if you get too close it's mumble for the folks on zoom so just keep a little bit of distance from the microphone. Thank you for alluding us to that. |
| 01:35:06.21 | Walfred Solorzano | Leon Hunting. |
| 01:35:10.35 | Walfred Solorzano | Leon Hunting, all right. Next speaker, Xenia Gilg. |
| 01:35:15.22 | Unknown | that stepped out and she just left her with comments. |
| 01:35:19.09 | Walfred Solorzano | I got it right here. We'll put him for the record. Bert Damner. Damner? |
| 01:35:26.49 | Joan Cox | City Clerk, is your mic on? |
| 01:35:29.16 | Walfred Solorzano | Yes. |
| 01:35:29.68 | Joan Cox | Yeah. |
| 01:35:32.38 | Walfred Solorzano | Now we'll go over to, Yes. Yes, sir. |
| 01:35:45.41 | Aditya Padala | Hi, my name is Aditya Padala. I've been in Sausalito on the same street just over three decades. And I want to comment on, actually, Kim started, talked about 66 million here a few minutes ago. I think philosophically, I agree with the point of making a big space into multiple spaces if possible. I think many of us on the Hill there, |
| 01:36:10.56 | Unknown | uh, |
| 01:36:12.26 | Aditya Padala | have are glad that that unit is no longer considered, not because we don't want more units there, but because the place is Terribly unsafe. for anything for multi-units. Lots of landslides have happened very close to that, even as recently as two weeks ago. And I think it would make a huge horrible impact to the whole area. But I also want to commend listening to what all you've done. What an incredible thing you're doing for Sausalito. Thank you very much. |
| 01:37:03.26 | Adriana Bentley | My name is Adriana Bentley. I LIVE ON COLOMA RIGHT BY PARCEL 84, A NEIGHBOR OF John Donovan, I also wanted to say that. I was looking at the map and noticed that It's also condensed by our street on Coloma. the lot 84 and then all along Bridgeway, right by our street. I just wonder if all of our neighbors I don't know that we've been taken into consideration and if maybe we could somehow come to the table and talk about how that's going to impact our neighbors, there aren't many of us. There's only 18, so we don't have a huge voice, but I think that We should. somehow be taken into consideration, thank you. |
| 01:37:51.91 | Walfred Solorzano | Now we'll go to the Zoom speakers. Make sure you use the raise hand function on your Zoom application. If you're on phone, press star 9. First speaker is Long Water Trust. |
| 01:38:07.47 | Jill Hoffman | It looked like Chair Luxembourg was trying to speak. Thank you. |
| 01:38:11.94 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:38:12.68 | Jill Hoffman | You're muted, Chair Luxembourg. |
| 01:38:17.51 | Chair Luxembourg | I said, I will handle the calling of the Zoom speakers. I typically do that in planning commission hearing will continue to do that as I said, okay, mayor of licensing. |
| 01:38:27.23 | Mayor Blaustein | I think it's easier if the city clerk handles the speakers at this point. |
| 01:38:32.12 | Chair Luxembourg | This is a separate hearing for the Planning Commission, so I'm not comfortable with that, but you're going to have the opportunity to do that from the room there when you get to your part of that. So I would really appreciate that you honor the Planning Commission. |
| 01:38:46.26 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:38:46.28 | Walfred Solorzano | Hi, this is our special meeting. It'll bring us there for us logistically if we can handle the speakers. That way we can run an efficient meeting, please. |
| 01:38:53.79 | Chair Luxembourg | I think I can run an efficient meeting and Mayor Blasin, if you could just give me the courtesy to do this, I would appreciate it. |
| 01:39:00.40 | Mayor Blaustein | Could we have our city attorney weigh in on process here? I think it's pretty typical that we just run through the Zoom speakers with the city clerk just to move through it. As efficiently as possible because he has access to the controls that you don't have access to chair Luxembourg, so I just want to make sure we can. easily facilitate public comment. |
| 01:39:16.94 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, there is really no clear law on this one way or the other. I think for administrative efficiency, it does make sense to let City staff who have the controls run run run that portion of it if they're going to be able to you know operate the mics and so forth so. |
| 01:39:40.56 | Mayor Blaustein | Okay, given the technological challenges of the meeting and that we are using Zoom, I am going to ask that the city clerk facilitate the public comment. But of course, during the time when you are managing the public hearing and the feedback and comments from the commission, you will be in sole control, Chair Lexenberg. |
| 01:39:55.13 | Unknown | I understand. |
| 01:39:56.36 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 01:39:56.58 | Mayor Blaustein | language. |
| 01:39:57.03 | Unknown | and water trust. |
| 01:39:59.30 | Long Water Trust | Good afternoon. Thank you for all your work on the element. I request that Opportunity Site 4 is restored to the inventory as an Opportunity Site providing more opportunities and the lot zoning changed to multifamily. How would we go about this process to question? The site was removed as an opportunity site. I have not had any communication from the Housing Element Committee through the whole of last year, despite asking several times, I believe the matter was dealt with, as neighbours were gently supporting, it seemed at that time, in the spring of last year, when we started getting neighbour comment for a single family home, which seemed reasonable, Um, Just before the meeting on January the 25th, many neighbors opposed the development. but not before One of the neighbours... individually removed the opportunity side from the register. A housing element committee member, let's call this person. It's in the appendix that individual action The neighbor is immediately abutting that space. |
| 01:41:34.13 | Unknown | Thank you very much, sir. Next speaker. |
| 01:41:36.73 | Long Water Trust | Thank you. |
| 01:41:36.75 | Joan Cox | Exactly. |
| 01:41:36.92 | Long Water Trust | you |
| 01:41:36.97 | Joan Cox | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:41:37.86 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:41:37.88 | Joan Cox | Thank you. Can he identify the address of site four? |
| 01:41:45.47 | Long Water Trust | 215 Susalita Boulevard. It's a great site to work. I would not build it to maximum density, but it would allow me SB35 processing. I believe it probably already does. |
| 01:42:02.08 | Unknown | Next speaker, Lisset Sisselino. Sorry about that. |
| 01:42:09.88 | Lisa Chilino | Hi. Hi, my name is Lisa Chilino and I wanted to applaud the work of the city council working group to balance the units across the various sites in Sausalito. Specifically, I wanted to talk about the MLK park site. I'm a neighbor of the park along with Adriana Bentley who spoke before. And I'm very concerned about maintaining the public green spaces in our city. I think that 75 units at MLK Park is a much more reasonable number of units for that site. The 162 units suggested by the planning commission, I feel it's unreasonable, especially since it calls for almost 25% of all new units being on that single site. This does not represent a fair distribution of new units across the city. And having almost 25% of the units being on a single site represents a huge risk. especially since the development of MLK would require a public vote. With more high density housing in Sausalito, public green spaces and athletic facilities will be at a premium and will be incredibly important. These folks will have less private space and to exercise and appreciate trees. And so removing any public space makes little sense. You might not have heard much from the people at the north end of Sausalito, but that doesn't mean that we're not concerned and that we don't deserve fair representation. most of my neighbors, are, are, are, Working families with both parents working or much older people have higher priorities. Just because citizens at RN didn't have much time and energy to participate in |
| 01:43:45.30 | Unknown | Thank you very much. next speaker. Stacy Nimmo. |
| 01:43:53.99 | Stacy Nimmo | Thank you. MLK was purchased I'll go ahead and start my video. MLK was purchased by the city of Sausalito with funding of its residents to be a community center long, long ago. This is the first obligation that the MLK site has to its residents. MLK was later used in collateral for Measure F debt, which has over 60% of that was used to repair the buildings that are now being suggested for demolition for new houses The city's indebted the residents for the community center purchase first, and now it further indebted the residents is hostilating for repairs to what was eventually promised or was promised to be a community center. MLK remains collateral also by the Mellon Bank of New York, who I believe holds the certificates of participation. And I don't think that they have given consent to use the property in any other form, other than what they agreed to when they made the certification to get a participation. MLK is also bringing the city a much needed, or at least the time measure up was approved, a much needed $900,000 a year, And if you look at all the other sites, there's nothing that comes close to contributing that much to the city's financial help. Um, There are definitely better options that would would have less impact to the city's health Plus lead to residents of all Tad MLK park under construction or closed under construction for measure F or closed because of COVID for most of the time since the measure F has been passed. The proposal once again, very much. |
| 01:45:32.65 | Unknown | Next speaker is Karen Culligan. |
| 01:45:40.98 | Karen Culligan | there. Thanks for all your service on this one. There was some really valuable how much surplus you're looking for And what's enough, what's not enough. Just want to recall the fifth cycle of RENA where we, fell flat on our face. I think it was 79 units, we actually made 28. or we permitted 28, I don't know how many were actually built, 26 of those were ADUs. So if we were anywhere near that, we would need to be looking at over 2,000 units tonight if you're going to have the same completion rate. Obviously, we're going to get a better completion rate, but my encouragement would be to keep as many opportunity sites on the list as possible because Big projects are going to fall through. Small projects are going to fall through. for a variety of reasons, good or bad. So let's have as much opportunity on the table and not remove it today. So that's my main suggestion and thank you all for participating. |
| 01:46:41.01 | Unknown | Thank you. We'll be next speaker, Jenny Silva. |
| 01:46:45.04 | Jenny Silva | Hi, thanks. I'll just start out saying I'm really surprised to hear that the city believes that they don't need to get the input from the community. That is. not my understanding and even if the city can do it, it's certainly not in the spirit of the law. What is being proposed is exchanging over 10% of the sites and the sites are changing every moment in the community deserves to weigh in. There's a lot of people that were surprised here today. I'll also say that I'm really disappointed that, As I've said for months, we desperately need more housing. We desperately need more affordable housing, we desperately need more senior housing. That's very clear in all the analysis done. in the housing element. Yet we have taken off the two sites most likely to be developed into senior housing or affordable housing. HCD did say in its comment letter that Sausalito should keep those sites that are likely to be developed. Um, And we are going through all this shuffling and number play Um, in order to take off the sites that might actually do something. If we wanna do anything about the housing crisis, We need to let those sites go. Thanks. |
| 01:48:07.24 | Walfred Solorzano | Next speaker, Alice Merrill. |
| 01:48:14.12 | Alice Merrill | Bye. Can't see me at all. Okay, never mind. All I want to say is Some of the more obvious sites for... |
| 01:48:28.08 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:48:29.80 | Walfred Solorzano | Sorry, we lost your microphone. |
| 01:48:38.22 | Alice Merrill | Thank you. |
| 01:48:38.24 | Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 01:48:38.25 | Alice Merrill | I can't hear you, Alice. Well, I don't Now, why? |
| 01:48:42.91 | Unknown | Now we're going to go. |
| 01:48:43.27 | Mayor Blaustein | Bye. |
| 01:48:45.07 | Alice Merrill | My... I don't know why. I don't know what. You already know, Alice. |
| 01:48:48.29 | Unknown | or whatever. |
| 01:48:49.85 | Alice Merrill | You can. Yes. And to start with, If people don't realize about the sites that seem the best for low income and senior, which is probably down in the marineship. They're not aware of all the rest of what's important in the marineship and That concerns me. The other thing is we've had various, COVID stopped, made a mess of everything, we really have had some community input a while back. Secondly, Um, Everything north of Harbor Drive in the Marin ship is great. look there. But don't look south of Harbor Drive the Marineship is is such a treasure. Such a treasure. people don't realize. If you look around at the rest of the world, gentrification has hit hard. So please, and also one other thing is if there's a clock somewhere, I don't see it, It would be good if it were available for us to see. Thank you. |
| 01:50:02.10 | Unknown | Next speaker, Bo Moran. |
| 01:50:08.18 | Jonathan | Hi, thank you. My name is Jonathan. I want to again, like everyone else, thank you for all the work you've done on this, which is a complicated issue. But I want to ask and I apologize if I missed part of the discussion tonight, but if I understand correctly, part of the MLK property being considered is the tennis courts at that property. And, uh, If that's right, I just want to point out that there's very few public courts in Sausalito now. And the Marineship courts were recently repurposed and used for displaced people in a homeless camp. the MLK courts, are, you know, used for families and individuals and kids. There's camps and classes going on. They recently renovated those courts. I would just urge you to consider preserving those courts. There's very few, as I said, few public spaces in So if there's any way to reserve those courts or set them aside, that'd be great. Thank you. |
| 01:51:15.83 | Walfred Solorzano | Well, |
| 01:51:16.03 | Unknown | We have another speaker in house, Craig Merrily. |
| 01:51:24.79 | Craig Merrily | Thank you chair Luxembourg and members of the planning commission I wanted to let you know that the Sausalito Working Waterfront, of which I am one of the many members and activists, a local community organization dedicated to protecting the vast resources and incredible ecosystem in the marine ship. Thank you. Um, that depends directly on our discussion tonight because some folks have been proposing to destroy the marine ship, the working waterfront, by locating housing immediately adjacent to that, which will spell the doom in the end of this remarkable ecosystem. Fortunately, we have another opportunity which is to put housing in places where it makes sense, where it's logical and where it will cause conflicts and lawsuits that will occur if we move forward with the ill-conceived plan that was put forward to locate housing immediately adjacent and nearby the marine ship, hardworking waterfront which is south of Harbor Drive, north of Harbor Drive. There have been now more sites and we have an opportunity to uh locate them in a place that won't cause conflicts. We will be presenting signatures totaling over 1,000 um tonight and we will make sure that the planning commission has a copy of those petitions. Uh we thank you for all the work the hard work you've been doing. Thank you very much. |
| 01:52:58.55 | Unknown | Next speaker, Pat Zook. |
| 01:53:04.64 | Pat Zook | Yes, hi. There I am. First of all, I watched the Planning Commission meeting the other day, and I would like to commend them on their additions and subtractions with one exception. And that is, of course, the tennis courts. I'm listening to Beth who commented that the city on city owned property will have an obligation to encourage and offer designated opportunity sites for development This really raises a concern. Some thought on the part of some of the commissioners that we could designate a different part of that area for tennis courts. and rebuild the courts while allowing development at the corner site That is not a likely outcome. Um, Those courts will have to be offered for development and the rest of the site, which is currently offered designated as an opportunity site will also have to be offered for development So I would urge that that we're going to have. the tennis courts be retained. Also as a, uh, elimination of a real block to any kind of voter approval. on rezoning that area. I'd also like to comment on the analysis of sites 67 and 8, the withdrawal which refers to offices and not to the value of the underlying industrial zoning. on that site, which is, the zoning that should be applied for redevelopment of that property. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:54:39.26 | Unknown | Thank you. And next speaker, Sandra Bushmaker. |
| 01:54:54.52 | Walfred Solorzano | Andrew. |
| 01:54:55.32 | Sandra Bushmaker | I'm coming. Trying to get my video to work. The host stopped my video. I just wanna endorse what Pat Zook said. I wanna thank the planning commission for all the work that they've done on this. program and I want to emphasize the need to get this adopted. I think our staff has reported the dire consequences of not adopting tonight. So I want to encourage. Adoption so that we can retain what local control is still available for Sausalito. And if we wanna have a say on what happens in our town, we must adopt tonight. Thank you very much. |
| 01:55:37.70 | Unknown | No further speakers. |
| 01:55:49.90 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:55:50.03 | Commissioner Feller | LEXEMBERGER. |
| 01:55:51.59 | Chair Luxembourg | Thank you, Mayor Blavstein. At this point in time, it is the time for the Planning Commission to deliberate I'm going to start with having a general conversation, and then at some point we need to put a resolution on the floor. But until we see where we're going with this, I would like to just have people just make general comments. I will make comments at the end, but I just want to prelude this by we made a recommendation last Wednesday. It was very thorough. It was based on a working group from the Planning Commission, and it was based on initial HCD comments. So that is sort of our baseline. Since that time, we got additional comments from HCD. So I think what we need to do is add in any changes that need to be done to the recommendation we made before. And at that point, I think we can get to a resolution. The comments that we made before related to both the program aspects, as well as the sites that were included in appendix D. And I think they were thorough and allowed us to believe that we could get to a certified application A CERTIFIED HOUSING ELEMENT BY HDD AT THE END OF THIS PROCESS. SO TODAY THERE HAVE BEEN SOME ADDITIONAL SUGGESTIONS TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE HDD COMMENTS. WE NEED TO GO THROUGH THAT THOROUGHLY AND FIGURE OUT WHAT CHANGES TO OUR PREVIOUS RECOMMENDATION, WHICH IS OUR BASELINE, WE NEED TO MAKE. WITH THAT, I THINK I WILL OPEN IT UP TO COMMISSIONERS ONE AT A TIME. AND I GUESS I'LL START WITH COMMISSIONER FELLEN. |
| 01:57:45.54 | Commissioner Feller | Thank you, Chair Luxenberg. Just a point of clarification before I start into comments is Are we deliberating now and then are we making a motion? Is that the process here? |
| 01:57:59.19 | Chair Luxembourg | Yes, I mean, that's our typical process. And I think that would be useful here. On Wednesday, we put a motion because we had a package on the floor, but now I'm not sure. I want to make sure we know what elements people, we always agree with our own recommendation, but whatever changes we want to make, I want to get some idea of what those are so that we can figure out what our actual resolution would be. And hopefully we can call other members, member of the public, it would be nice to get to a resolution and not have to continue. I would like to see where everybody's at before we figure out how to craft them. |
| 01:58:31.46 | Commissioner Feller | All right. |
| 01:58:35.46 | Commissioner Feller | Okay, thank you Chair Lexenberg. I'll go ahead and start and I first want to just point out We have asked over and over again and the community has not let us down. for comments. We've been asking since October 2021. And we have received, and when I say we, that's the housing element, city council, planning commission, you name it, we have received a steady stream of comments. And they've been thoughtful, they've been substantive, It doesn't mean that everyone agrees with all of the comments, but I really want to commend the public and certainly the public did not let us down again. this evening and leading up to this special joint session. want to thank the public, I can tell you that commissioner Saad and I have reread every single written comment that um we received back to the beginning of this process up until, at least for me, probably about, 2.30 today when we had to get ready for this hearing. So if anything is coming after that, we have not seen it. Um, I also want to point out that MLK has always been on the housing element list. It's always been on the site inventory. Um, referred to as site 84, uh, for those of you following in the, in the matrices. And it had been identified in three different sub areas, as Beth has referred to it. and appreciate the comments tonight that are really specific to where we have defined a sub area one. Um, I don't think there was ever any intention of denying people the opportunity to play tennis. Um, generally, but that corner site where the tennis courts are Um, offers an opportunity for housing where tennis courts might be better suited somewhere else. within the MLK park. Most of the area that we're talking about is paved. It is not green park as we think of park. But I certainly appreciate some of the comments that have been made regarding that and certainly um, holding anything up because of tennis course is not what we're here to do tonight. We're here to come up with a thoughtful, viable, resilient plan. Um, I stand by the Planning Commission original recommendation. I would absolutely move or make a motion to remove City Hall There are only 10 sites there. We have a very large buffer. In October of 2022, we had a buffer of 104. And on January 25th, we actually had a buffer of 103. And the reason I'm saying 103 is is that our buffer number did not include the projects that were already permitted that can that could be counted towards our RENA number whereas this evening's buffer number of 169 does include The project's already permitted. In fact, it's a higher number is 25. I really want a better understanding from Beth where we need to be with that number. If we take City Hall off, It's not just 10 units, but we have to look at the individual categories of those units but I'm not comfortable with City Hall on. I also just wanted to note that sites 207, 208, 210, those were included because of an email that was received expressing interest from the owner of those sites. And that's why we, those were included in the planning commission. So if that owner is no longer interested, that's fine. those sites can be removed and that can, and I believe that they were removed in the city council working groups recommendation, which I would support. Certainly. Um, So that's sort of where I am. I did work over the weekend and a little bit yesterday, going through all the programs |
| 02:03:07.16 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:03:07.18 | Commissioner Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:03:07.21 | Unknown | Maybe. |
| 02:03:07.43 | Commissioner Feller | Thank you. and providing suggestions and edits. to the city council working group. I believe they've done an amazing job, um, supplementing the language of those existing programs and certainly filling out program 20, which was previously sort of Um, intentionally left blank, let's say, and held for a future opportunity like this to talk about infrastructure So I can certainly support that. I'm delighted that the City Council Working Group has taken our recommendation. of amending the units per acre that's included in their count. So I can support that. To me, it really just gets down to the sites and how we handle the buffer. The only other option, and I'm 100% for water-based housing, but if site 302 has or offers slightly more complications because of BCDC. Again, I would want Beth to maybe weigh in on that a little bit. Again, I certainly support it, but, The goal here is to have the best scoring site suitability criteria we possibly can. And so that's really where I fall on the recommendation from the Planning Commission on Wednesday what we have in front of us as recommended by the city council and sort of the delta in between that that's where I fall so thank you chair. Thank you. |
| 02:04:38.73 | Joan Cox | Chair Luxembourg, may I ask that Commissioner Feller repeat the three sites that were initially included because of property owner interest, but now should be removed the last three sites that you referenced. |
| 02:04:53.27 | Commissioner Feller | Yes, of course, Councilmember Cox. Those were sites 207. 208 and 210. They are along Bridgeway, around 911 to 917 Bridgeway. et cetera. |
| 02:05:14.03 | Joan Cox | to. |
| 02:05:14.11 | Commissioner Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:05:14.13 | Joan Cox | So only we've only heard that 927 asked to be removed. The other, can we clarify |
| 02:05:14.15 | Commissioner Feller | Yeah. |
| 02:05:21.25 | Joan Cox | because I saw correspondence over the weekend that the other property owner continues to have interest in having their sites on the inventory. |
| 02:05:30.60 | Commissioner Feller | Yes, I heard on the public hearing, the gentleman was actually there in City Hall and ask for all of them to be removed. If I heard that incorrectly, Perhaps the third. |
| 02:05:41.60 | Joan Cox | But he only owns 927. |
| 02:05:46.23 | Commissioner Feller | Oh, I believed he owned all of them. Sergio, can you weigh in here? Did you have something to say? |
| 02:05:54.36 | Sergio Rudin | Now, I was going to suggest to the chair just in terms of for facilitating this discussion, You know, I think maybe it makes sense for the commissioners to deliberate first on any modifications to the programs that are set forth in the housing element. And then I would suggest that the commission The commissioners individually identify what sites they'd like to discuss and deliberate in terms of changes. And that will help us, you know, facilitate any recusals if recusals are going to be required. So I would suggest we structure our discussion in that manner. |
| 02:06:26.51 | Chair Luxembourg | I, |
| 02:06:30.83 | Chair Luxembourg | Okay, so I'm hearing from Commissioner Feller. She wants to have a conversation. She has a later conversation regarding site number 52, later conversation regarding 207, 208, and 210. And I also heard Commissioner Feller talk about the MLK site. What are the numbers on those? Oh. |
| 02:06:55.35 | Commissioner Feller | The MLK site is site 82. And I'm still in favor of sub area one, which is consistent with the planning commission recommendation. |
| 02:06:58.70 | Chair Luxembourg | And I'm |
| 02:07:06.99 | Commissioner Feller | What has changed is the number of units or the density, if you will, in sub area one. And so I can support what the city council working group is recommending as long as we are considering some of these other areas north of Harbor Drive on Bridgeway. And just for clarity, Just to be clear, the planning commission where we were all issued an email at 2 22 today from the owner of sites 207 to 210 on Bridgeway and has asked for those to be removed. That is why I do not have a problem with that. But I will put that out there as my comments for discussion and deliberation here with the rest of the commission. |
| 02:07:59.35 | Chair Luxembourg | Thank you, Commissioner Feller. What I'm understanding from City Attorney Rudin is he would like us, each of us as we go, as we talk about these things, identify the sites that you have, that you want to talk about, and then we're going to segment this so that we can disclose any conflicts that we have. I believe, City Attorney Rudin, am I getting that correctly? |
| 02:08:27.60 | Sergio Rudin | Yes, yes, I think as a practical matter, the commission can make a decision on the programs and the housing element. make a recommendation on all of those. And then to the extent the commission wants to have any sort of discussion or debate on the sites inventory, maybe folks can identify which ones, which sites they are going to want to bring up for discussion and then Chair Luxenberg, you can help facilitate the order in which we discuss those. So that folks can... |
| 02:08:53.59 | Chair Luxembourg | I'm making a list right now. So unfortunately, the programs and the sites are intertwined in concept. So it is a little difficult sometimes because one of the programs is to implement the site. So but I understand the concept and we will do the best we can to do that. But we won't make any actions on any sites until we've segmented them. So I understand what we're trying to do. |
| 02:09:20.27 | Commissioner Feller | Dr. Laksenberg, do you need any more clarification of the sites I've mentioned for your list? |
| 02:09:25.69 | Chair Luxembourg | So Maya, if I can just, the sites that I heard in your conversation were 82, which is MLK, 52, which is City Hall. |
| 02:09:33.94 | Commissioner Feller | City Hall. Sorry chair MLK is 84. |
| 02:09:38.68 | Chair Luxembourg | 84, okay, 84. |
| 02:09:40.39 | Commissioner Feller | The city hall is 52. |
| 02:09:42.36 | Chair Luxembourg | 52, yes. Yeah, too. |
| 02:09:44.35 | Commissioner Feller | Amen. And the other sites are um, two, 207 to 210. |
| 02:09:55.20 | Chair Luxembourg | 210 and we will what I will do is after each of us had an opportunity to make some general comments about all the things and list any sites that we need to talk about. I will we will segment this and we will have commissioners identify any conflicts as we do each side, as well as any city council since this is the joint meeting if they have any conflicts so. and the conflicts are if you're located in AS WE DO EACH SITE AS WELL AS ANY CITY COUNSELOR SINCE THIS IS THE JOINT MEETING IF THEY HAVE ANY CONFLICTS. SO, AND THE CONFLICTS ARE IF YOU'RE LOCATED WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET AS STATE LAW WITH YOUR A THOUSAND FEET THERE IS A TRIGGER AND WITHIN 500 FEET THERE IS A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT TRIGGER SO WE WILL GET TO THAT WHEN WE GET TO THAT POINT. AT THIS POINT, COMMISSIONER FOWLER, DO YOU HAVE OTHER COMMENTS OR SHOULD I? I'LL MOVE ON. |
| 02:10:44.43 | Commissioner Feller | Those are the major comments I have. I mean, I'll want when everyone's finished, I'll just want to ask Beth to help retally where we are with the buffer. So let's hold that conversation till later, but I'm done otherwise. |
| 02:11:00.09 | Chair Luxembourg | Okay, and for other commissioners, I appreciate Commissioner Feller's work on this as part of the subcommittee, and we'll be looking for her and Commissioner Saad for, as we did at the previous meeting, for the actual motion that we're going to have. So that's the end goal here when we get there. At this point, I'll turn to Commissioner Saad with your thoughts at the moment. |
| 02:11:27.34 | Commissioner Saad | Thank you, Chair Luxembourg. Mm-hmm. I barring any discussion right now on any site specifics, I think overall, I want to thank the city council group for working over the weekend. So diligently in getting back these comments, I think there are a lot of great additions in to the overall document. you know, on the odds and the historic overlay, I think there's, some concepts that will really further what we're trying to achieve here, both on Planning Commission and in the city. like a housing concierge, that was a wonderful addition as well. So overall, I don't think I have any further comments on the programs as they are tied to the sites, Just to echo, My colleague, Commissioner Feller, we have put together previous presentation, I think we, tried our best to have a thoughtful production and were able to secure consensus among the planning commission. So I would stick in line with our previous proposal as well, of course, open to discussing some of those sites in relation to the programs. When we get to certain sites, I will be recusing. I'll be recusing myself from site 52. I'll put that on the record now. and would look forward to discussing site 84, MLK, And as well as this this new group of sites, which I do not have a conflict with, but the 207, 208 and 210, I think there's some clarification we can knock out quite quickly there. And otherwise, I'd like to. when we get to the sites as well, open it up for some discussion on the additions from city council on. Marin ship. But otherwise I think just again to echo um, Commissioner Fowler, we really appreciate it as being a member of the HEAC and on the planning commission, looking at the virtual binder and all, it's been a ton of public comment and it has been wonderful to see. It is impossible to do with out everything that we've received. And the intention was to take as much into account and I think and I think our proposal has done so. That's where I am currently. And I'm looking forward to the same discussions. Otherwise, the program seemed fine at this moment. |
| 02:13:56.14 | Chair Luxembourg | Commissioner Saad, thank you. Can you tell me which sites in the marine ship so that I can keep this running list of the ones that we're going to see? |
| 02:14:04.18 | Commissioner Saad | Sure. you Excuse me, let me just pull it up. This is coming from the |
| 02:14:16.49 | Commissioner Saad | edits. from the city council group. There have been some additions. There's a new group. I'll just throw them all out there. Um, to 11, 303. 305. And 306. |
| 02:14:39.98 | Commissioner Saad | And those would be the marine ship sites, site numbers. Thank you. |
| 02:14:45.13 | Chair Luxembourg | I HAVE THE MATRIX UP AND I CAN SEE THOSE SITES. I'LL KEEP MAKING THIS LIST AS WE GO. WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO ASK COMMISSIONER GRAFF, DO YOU HAVE ANY INITIAL THOUGHTS ON WHERE WE'RE AT AT THE MOMENT? and list ending sites that you want to possibly consider later in our conversation. |
| 02:14:59.57 | Commissioner Graff | Thank you. |
| 02:15:04.30 | Commissioner Graff | Yeah, thank you, Chair Luxembourg. Well, I also have to echo, how much hard work some of the other folks have put into this. I've found it just daunting. There's such an incredible amount information. It's, you know, you can read it for weeks. But in any event, and I've done my best. So basically I think the program, Um, I'm in support of those, but they should pretty much stand as they are. Also, our recommendation from The other evening, I also um, an agreement with. Um, There are two sites that are I believe within 500 feet of me and that's the City Hall sites and One. down on the waterfront. Ah, I forgot the name of the street down there. That's us. Site number 47. |
| 02:16:16.34 | Jonathan | I'm sorry. |
| 02:16:17.98 | John Donovan | Thank you. |
| 02:16:20.31 | Commissioner Graff | those both are within Um, within that 500 So I guess I will have to recuse myself Discussing those. Um, Generally speaking, again, I would like to echo much of the public Um, concern about housing in the Marin shift I am seeing that north of of Harvard Drive. Um, I can see that happening and I would support the sites that have been identified up there. |
| 02:16:59.67 | Unknown | Mmm. |
| 02:17:00.40 | Commissioner Graff | but down in the friendship, I think housing is just not appropriate. So I think I agree with removing Um, that major site down there. I forgot the numbers and it's not even showing on my most recent map because I guess it's been taken off. Um, Again, Thanks. to everyone for all their efforts and the public response has been amazing. |
| 02:17:30.07 | Chair Luxembourg | So thank you, Commissioner Graff. But beyond the ones you have to recuse, were there sites in the Marin ship that you want? And I'm making a list of the ones we're going to have to segment. Are those ones you want to talk about or not? The ones that you're not, do not have a question. |
| 02:17:30.56 | Commissioner Graff | for me. |
| 02:17:48.73 | Chair Luxembourg | You want to have a conversation about that or do you not want to |
| 02:17:53.47 | Commissioner Graff | I'm just not sure what you're asking. |
| 02:17:53.89 | Chair Luxembourg | Bye. I'm just making a look. So after we have our general comments, we're going to go into individual sites. And then at the beginning, anybody that has to recuse will leave the room and we'll have that conversation. And then that conversation will end and come back into the room. So my question is, you mentioned some sites in the Marine ship. Are those sites that you want to have a discussion about? So I'm just trying to get an order of events here. |
| 02:18:01.77 | Commissioner Graff | Yeah. |
| 02:18:21.64 | Commissioner Graff | I'm happy to discuss them. Well, the main, the largest site of concern, I think has been pretty much removed from the Uh, sites being considered. So I don't know that we need much discussion there. |
| 02:18:41.30 | Chair Luxembourg | Okay, thank you, I just wanted to clarify. Thank you for your comments for now. We'll get back to more conversation once we segment this. Going on to Vice Chair Juniors, any thoughts or comments that you have? And if there's specific sites, please give me the numbers so that we can segment this after this part of the session. I'm not. |
| 02:19:02.49 | Vice Chair Junius | COMMISSIONER. Thank you, sir, Luxembourg. I'm not going to be identifying any specific sites, nor am I within a thousand feet of any of them. So That's not an issue for me going forward as the discussions progress. I'm. Yeah, I'm going to continue the comment that I made at the Planning Commission meeting. I, for the most part, don't. don't support removal of any sites from the plan at this point. um, Let me also start by saying that the plan itself is fine. I think the consultant has done a great job And so has the HEAC and Commissioner Feller and Commissioner Saad. and everybody else that's been involved. I really do thank everybody for getting us to this point. BUT OBVIOUSLY WHERE THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD RIGHT NOW IS THE LIST OF OPPORTUNITY SITES. A lot of conversation tonight about buffers and compliance and how are we gonna get there? And how does this all gonna play out for Sausalito? Um, The bigger the buffer, the better. I don't think there's any question about that. And I appreciate the, DRILLING DOWN ON HOW CLOSE WE CAN GET TO A NUMBER THAT ASSURED US SOME FAVORABLE TREATMENT BY HCD BUT I DON'T THINK WE REALLY KNOW THAT. The more sites we've analyzed, the more sites we can keep on the list, the more likely the plan is going to be accepted by HCD. And so I'd just like to, again, you know, state for the record, my uh, SUPPORT FOR KEEPING ALL THE SITES WE'VE ANALYZED ON THE LIST AS OPPORTUNITY SITES AND MAKE ONE VERY SPECIFIC COMMENT We've talked a lot about buffers, and I do agree. The buffer seems like it's it's workable and is going to possibly get us there. but that's the buffer for the whole plan. Um, They're low and very low. numbers. on the buffer list, there's only 15, you only have a buffer of 15 units in those two tranches. That doesn't seem like much of a buffer to me at all. and some of the major sites that are coming off the list per the commission's recommendation last week. are all for low and very low income sites. So I do think that's a concern. And I think, you know, I think as some of the other speakers mentioned, You know, housing development is difficult. It takes time, it takes money, it takes It's economically challenging. and to not you know, with sites that have been analyzed for a significant amount of time and taking them off at the last minute here. I just I'm just concerned about that. So, I throw that out there for consideration and thank you very much. |
| 02:21:37.50 | Chair Luxembourg | Thank you, Vice Chair Junius. I have some concerns about SITE 52, BUT SINCE WE'RE GOING TO SEGMENT IT, I'LL HOLD OFF MY COMMENTS ON THAT AND DOING THE SEGMENTING. SO AT THIS POINT, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO, LET'S HAVE SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT SPECIFIC SITES. UNDERSTANDING, I BELIEVE, THAT WE SHOULD TAKE DISCUSS ONES WHERE WE'RE REDUCING THE NUMBERS AND THEN LATER HAVING ONES WHERE WE'RE ADDING. Thank you. |
| 02:22:11.09 | Sergio Rudin | Chair. |
| 02:22:11.51 | Chair Luxembourg | question. |
| 02:22:11.96 | Sergio Rudin | Thank you. I would actually recommend that you take these in an order of where commissioners have conflict. |
| 02:22:12.39 | Chair Luxembourg | I would actually. |
| 02:22:20.62 | Sergio Rudin | just because of the way that the FPPC regulations on conflicts are structured. So to the extent we've already had some commissioners mentioned that they have conflicts on which they're gonna need to recuse. So I would recommend that, for structuring the discussion that you have, that the Planning Commission review and make a decision on sites 47 and 52. And then the two commissioners that have mentioned they have conflicts already come back after that decision is made. And then to the extent that we need to have a discussion on sites 202 through 208 and 210, that we have those discussions as well. And then after that, you can make all of the- |
| 02:22:59.23 | Chair Luxembourg | for that, you can make all of the- Sorry to interrupt, but 84, one of the commissioners, there's a tie between 50, a couple of people have mentioned a tie between 52 and 84. So shouldn't we talk about 84? Because there might be conflicts on 84 as well. |
| 02:23:18.06 | Sergio Rudin | Um, Thank you. I am not aware of any conflicts on 84 or Do any of the commissioners have conflicts with discussing 84? |
| 02:23:25.08 | Chair Luxembourg | Bye. I don't think we do, but I think there might be a city council conflict on any foreign situation. |
| 02:23:30.16 | Commissioner Feller | We're only talking, I mean, we're only talking on a level here. |
| 02:23:31.56 | Unknown | Tanya Hertz. |
| 02:23:33.62 | Chair Luxembourg | Sure. |
| 02:23:33.72 | Commissioner Feller | Yeah. So why don't we start with |
| 02:23:34.58 | Chair Luxembourg | So it's. |
| 02:23:37.35 | Commissioner Feller | 84. |
| 02:23:38.62 | Chair Luxembourg | We're only talking on this the last comment. What are we talking about? |
| 02:23:41.77 | Commissioner Feller | This is part of the planning commission hearing here. So we don't need to worry about the city council issues regarding recusal or conflict. But nobody on the commission has a conflict with 84. |
| 02:23:55.27 | Chair Luxembourg | Okay, so I wanna understand how this works. So later when we get to the city council part of the hearing, if a council has a recusal and we're talking yet again about these sites, they don't have to leave the room. |
| 02:24:06.16 | Sergio Rudin | The council is going to have their own hearing. |
| 02:24:08.69 | Chair Luxembourg | And when they have their hearing, are we dismissed? Are we staying around? How does this joint meeting work? you |
| 02:24:19.83 | Sergio Rudin | Um, I mean, you folks are certainly welcome to stay. It is a joint meeting. And you can make comment as members of the public during the council portion of the public hearing as well. |
| 02:24:30.66 | Chair Luxembourg | We don't have to leave the video abortion portion during the council portion on sites where there are recusals needed. |
| 02:24:30.69 | Sergio Rudin | We don't have. |
| 02:24:37.34 | Chair Luxembourg | or planning for it. Of course. Is that my understanding? |
| 02:24:41.59 | Sergio Rudin | Yes. |
| 02:24:42.73 | Chair Luxembourg | Okay, good, I didn't know that, but that's good to know. Okay, so with that, we'll talk about 52 followed by Um... Well, 84 is going to be in there somewhere. 52, 84, 207, 208, 210, 211, 303, 305, and 306. So let's start with 52. And any commissioners have any need to recuse themselves with regard to the discussion of 52? Okay. |
| 02:25:17.13 | Commissioner Graff | Thank you. |
| 02:25:17.17 | Chair Luxembourg | I do. Thank you both. |
| 02:25:17.32 | Commissioner Graff | Bye. |
| 02:25:17.37 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:25:17.50 | Commissioner Graff | the |
| 02:25:18.58 | Unknown | Thank you both. |
| 02:25:20.52 | Chair Luxembourg | My understanding is you need to turn your video off, but you'll still be able to hear as members of the public. And you'll also be able to hear when we finish the discussion of 52, so you can join us back. Now we're on 52, Commissioner Feller, the Planning Board of Commission hasD BACK MY COMMENTS ON THAT. THE CITY HALL IS THE CENTER OF OUR COMMUNITY. IT IS CENTRALLY LOCATED. IT IS A PIECE OF PUBLICLY OWNED LAND. IT IS BACK IN THE 70s AND 80s, A LOT OF COMMUNITIES HAD LAND FOR SCHOOLS AND OTHER PUBLIC PURPOSES. AND THE BABY BOOMERS KIDS GREW UP AND THE SCHOOLS WEREN'T NEEDED AND THEY TURNED THEM INTO senior housing. had land for schools and other public purposes. And the baby boomers kids grew up and the schools weren't needed and they turned them into senior housing and public housing, other types of housing, which was a good thing at the time, but then the baby boomers kids had kids and we needed schools back. |
| 02:25:31.22 | Unknown | you |
| 02:26:19.82 | Chair Luxembourg | And so what happened then was there, where do we get the land? So once you turn land into housing, whether you lease it, whether you sell it, doesn't matter. Once it's in housing, it's housing forever, really. And so the idea of turning the city hall into housing, whether it's the parking lot, the city hall or Sweeney Park, any of those is just short-sighted. for 10 units, which we can put elsewhere or we have the buffer for. I think that the City Hall, it is not, it is so important to our community. It's an emergency shelter. It's used for lots of different uses. It has a library and to put it for low and moderate income. And low and moderate income housing should have the same benefits of all other housing. We shouldn't try to segregate housing where low and moderate income people have to have city hall people parked in the basement of their homes. We should develop low and moderate income that's just like every other housing, isn't part of some mixed use or some leaseback arrangement or something like that. SO I STRONGLY SAY THAT FOR 10 UNITS IT IS NOT WORTH HAVING THE CITY HALL IN THERE. AND I THINK THAT THE BUFFERS ALLOW FOR US TO TAKE IT OUT OR THERE'S OTHER PLACES THAT WE COULD ADD HOUSING SUCH AS MLK. WE COULD ADD THE 10 UNITS THERE OR NOT BECAUSE WE STILL HAVE THE BUFFERS. I STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT THE CITY HALL IS NOT THE RIGHT PLACE TO PUT HOUSING AND JUST BECAUSE WE OWN IT AND JUST BECAUSE WE CAN DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT. SO THAT'S MY THOUGHTS ON CITY HALL HOUSING. ITEM 52, COMMISSIONER, Mr. Feller, have you made some comments? Do you have any further comments on Site 52? |
| 02:28:10.32 | Commissioner Feller | I just wanna point out for people following along here that, um, of our justification for recommending its removal at the Planning Commission hearing on Wednesday was you if we're adding all of this housing stock and all of these Um, units are going to be occupied, we have a much larger community that is going to require a larger government to govern it and additional services and all the programs that we've identified, there's gonna be more staff in the city to help monitor it. Thank you. for 10 units that even the city council working group has identified in the best PowerPoint. CAN BE ACCOMMODATED AT MLK IN THE SAME categories of the units that we would remove from city hall to me we're just moving what Bye. The City Council working group identified at City Hall over to MLK and we're not losing any units. It doesn't affect the buffer. And it solves this problem. So I stand by the Planning Commission recommendation not to have it on the list. |
| 02:29:19.25 | Chair Luxembourg | THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER FELLOW. I ALSO DO WANT TO ADD, IF YOU LOOK AT THE REPORT THAT WENT TO HCD, CITY, REMOVAL OF CITY HALL WAS COMMENTED ON PROBABLY BY AS MANY, ALMOST AS MANY PEOPLE, THERE WAS ONE OTHER SITE UP ON MIRA AND PROBABLY AS MANY COMMENTS, BUT THERE, IT WAS UNIVERSALLY DECIDED BY COMMENTING ON AND IT'S NOT BEING THE BEST PLACE TO. OF HOUSING. WITH THAT, COMMISSIONER VICE CHAIR JUNIUS, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON SITE 52? |
| 02:29:50.15 | Vice Chair Junius | Well, I mean, there's an exception to every statement. And so if there is a piece of property that would come off, I think this one, there's enough of a, justification here. I think both of you and Commissioner Feller made excellent points regarding the central location that the need for the city to control that site. and have Yeah. have some flexibility on the site Once it is housing, it's housing. You're right, Chair Feller. I'm sorry, Chair Luxembourg. So yeah, I mean, I'm, Yes, I'd be fine with this one coming off the list. |
| 02:30:26.87 | Chair Luxembourg | Okay, I think we have a consensus that City Hall should come off the list. City Hall coming off the list is already part of our recommendation from last Wednesday. I need to ask City Attorney Rudin, do we have to take a vote on something that's already in, which we've already recommended? |
| 02:30:44.44 | Sergio Rudin | I think you should have a vote to make that part of your recommendation to the city council tonight. Thank you. |
| 02:30:50.97 | Chair Luxembourg | Thank you. |
| 02:30:51.00 | Sergio Rudin | If that is your desire to do so. |
| 02:30:51.27 | Chair Luxembourg | if that is your question. Okay, I'll entertain a motion from members to take off the City Hall site. |
| 02:31:01.91 | Commissioner Feller | I'll make a motion to remove site 52 and relocate the units identified in the city council working group on that site onto the MLK site. as part of our larger motion this evening. |
| 02:31:15.03 | Vice Chair Junius | second of that. |
| 02:31:16.27 | Chair Luxembourg | Okay, there's a motion and second. Let me ask Senator Rudin, since that ties to a site that we're about to talk about, can we do that motion now or do I need to wait for the other members to come back? |
| 02:31:28.77 | Sergio Rudin | You can do that motion now. |
| 02:31:31.66 | Chair Luxembourg | Thank you. All right, Director Phipps, can you call roll call for the Planning Commission on this motion? Thank you. |
| 02:31:40.84 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you. |
| 02:31:40.87 | Chair Luxembourg | Thank you. |
| 02:31:40.95 | Brandon Phipps | Certainly, Vice Chair Juniors. |
| 02:31:43.99 | Vice Chair Junius | Yes. |
| 02:31:45.90 | Brandon Phipps | Commissioner Feller. |
| 02:31:47.05 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 02:31:48.43 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you. |
| 02:31:48.45 | Chair Luxembourg | Sure, I love some of them. Yes. Motion passes. Okay, thank you so much. With that, let's move on to Site 84, which is MLK, and I would like to invite Commissioner Graff and Commissioner Saad to come back into the room. |
| 02:31:51.03 | Michael Van Walt | Go Kermit. |
| 02:32:08.31 | Chair Luxembourg | There's no discussion about. And, and share. |
| 02:32:12.66 | Sergio Rudin | And chair. |
| 02:32:13.27 | Chair Luxembourg | Yeah. |
| 02:32:13.96 | Sergio Rudin | Just in terms of order, I heard that there are you know, sites 84, 211, 303, 305, 306, potentially 208 through 210 that were mentioned for discussion that the commission wanted to discuss. If there are any sites among that group that also require recusals, we should take those next. |
| 02:32:33.69 | Chair Luxembourg | Yeah. |
| 02:32:40.17 | Chair Luxembourg | Okay, so slide 84 and I have 207, 208, 210, 211, 303, 305, and 306. Are there any recusals necessary for those sites? Commissioner Pellett. |
| 02:32:55.31 | Unknown | Yes, thank you chair. I need to recuse from |
| 02:32:59.03 | Commissioner Feller | to zero seven to two zero. Second floor has been ignored. |
| 02:33:02.21 | Chair Luxembourg | with 207 to 21. |
| 02:33:05.78 | Commissioner Feller | 207 to 210 I'm within 1000 feet of those properties. |
| 02:33:11.37 | Chair Luxembourg | Okay, and you feel that you have a conflict for being within a thousand, more than 500? |
| 02:33:16.77 | Commissioner Feller | In the abundance of caution, I'm going to recuse myself. |
| 02:33:20.87 | Chair Luxembourg | Okay, so what we're going to do here is we're going to take 84 to 11303 305 and 306 right now, and then we will we will hold out to chair. |
| 02:33:20.91 | Commissioner Feller | Okay. |
| 02:33:31.72 | Sergio Rudin | Chair, I would recommend you do that in the opposite order based on the FPPC regulations is decide the conflicts first and then everything else. |
| 02:33:32.65 | Chair Luxembourg | I would. |
| 02:33:39.81 | Chair Luxembourg | I'm trying to take a bit numerical order. I have it listed in the miracle order. |
| 02:33:45.54 | Commissioner Feller | So |
| 02:33:46.52 | Chair Luxembourg | Okay, so... |
| 02:33:46.57 | Commissioner Feller | Thank you. |
| 02:33:46.59 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:33:46.61 | Commissioner Feller | Okay, so. Thank you. |
| 02:33:47.75 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:33:47.77 | Commissioner Feller | Cues now. |
| 02:33:48.75 | Chair Luxembourg | Yes. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. All right, so we're gonna talk about 207, 208 and 210. which Uh, uh, going to Commissioner Saad mentioned these, so I'm gonna let, and you were on the subcommittee, so I'll let you handle your thoughts on 207, 208, and 210. |
| 02:34:12.37 | Commissioner Saad | Thank you, Chair Luxenberg. I do not believe outside of address 927 bridgeway, which we did receive public comment for, and it was an addition that was not part of the group. And if that was a personal oversight, I apologize to that property owner. but we do have on record correspondence. Thank you. from the property owner. |
| 02:34:47.12 | Commissioner Saad | Oh no, I'm sorry, hold on. Am I looking at, I'm terribly sorry. There are so many sheets and going on. We're doing 202, can we go by an address? Can you give me an address here? |
| 02:34:56.99 | Chair Luxembourg | address here. We got 925 Bridgeway 911 to 917 Bridgeway 931 to 933 Bridgeway, 927 Bridgeway. |
| 02:35:08.53 | Commissioner Saad | Okay. Yes, thank you. I'm sorry. I am correct. I just had a moment. So I want to be triple sure that we're discussing the right thing. So, I have not seen any further correspondence from the property owner of those parcels that he would like to rescind his offer that was originally asking to be put on to the housing list. Public comment was correct. That did come in post submittal to HCD. But they there is an opportunity there. The property owner of 927 Bridgeway is requesting his specific parcel to come off and as he has commented that he is not interested, it would be fair to ensure we do not move forward with 927 Bridgeway. But I do not think We necessarily need to remove the other group of parcels that we had recommended at the Planning Commission hearing. barring any correspondence, and I don't see it on the public record. So I would say we stick with them. and definitely ensure that the owner of 927 Bridgeways property is |
| 02:36:27.85 | Chair Luxembourg | removed. Okay, I would like to reiterate. So 927, you're suggesting that 927 come off. The property owner did speak during the public comment period and suggested to come off. He also did indicate he would like the others to come off, but he doesn't own those properties. But that's his public recommendation on those as well. You're suggesting that we take off, your recommendation is we take off 927 and Bridgeway and leave the other ones is what you're asking. |
| 02:36:59.83 | Commissioner Saad | That is a good summation. That is what I am saying. |
| 02:37:03.40 | Chair Luxembourg | Okay, thank you. I will turn to Commissioner Graff. What is your view on these three site numbers? |
| 02:37:16.46 | Commissioner Graff | Well, I with Commissioner Saad's recommendation if the property owner wants his property taken off the list. We need to take it off. The other ones I think we should keep. in the spirit of keeping as much as we can. for our buffer. |
| 02:37:40.29 | Chair Luxembourg | Okay, thank you, Commissioner Graff, Vice Chair Genius. What are your thoughts on 207, 208, and 210? |
| 02:37:48.34 | Vice Chair Junius | Thank you, Chair Luxenberg. I'd like to keep them all on. Just because they're there's a current owner that isn't interested in developing, doesn't mean that it's not a future owner that might want to develop, And just because you're SITE IS IDENTIFIED DOESN'T FORCE YOU TO DO ANYTHING. SO I THINK OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION AND TO KEEP THE opportunities for future housing growth in the city. as high as possible. for to keep them all on. |
| 02:38:15.39 | Chair Luxembourg | Thank you, Vice Chair Junius. With that, I'm going to entertain, if somebody wants to make a motion, I will entertain a motion. |
| 02:38:25.89 | Commissioner Saad | I'll make a motion to keep I'm sorry, I don't have the numbers in front of me, the site numbers. to heat. |
| 02:38:34.66 | Chair Luxembourg | Unfortunately, if I can interrupt for a second, Beth, on your matrix, you have all of them listed with the same property, with the same site numbers. So is it possible to give us a separation of 927 or are all they together and we have to do it by address? |
| 02:38:36.13 | Commissioner Saad | So I hope I can... Please. |
| 02:38:54.88 | Beth Thompson | Site 927-929 Bridgeway is number 208 on the inventory. |
| 02:39:02.69 | Chair Luxembourg | to a site. It's 927 to 929. Right. It's 208. Okay. So, uh, Commissioner Saad, 208 is the one that you're, uh, I think you're going to suggest come off in 207 and 210. You were going to suggest you're, you're saying stay on. Is that I'll let you make the motion now. Yes. Thank |
| 02:39:25.94 | Commissioner Saad | Yes, thank you. You did take the words out of my mouth in hearing. And I think just before I make that motion, just in the interest of other conversations with the public, |
| 02:39:30.82 | Chair Luxembourg | Oh, good. |
| 02:39:31.26 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:39:39.41 | Commissioner Saad | you know, there from the site scoring suitability, I think that, you know, there, there is merit to these sites, along with the property interest property owner interest. So I'd like to move ahead and make a motion to retain site 207 and 210 and remove site 208, confirming that is the correct address of 927 Bridgeway. for the housing element. |
| 02:40:12.47 | Chair Luxembourg | Thank you for that motion. Is there a second? |
| 02:40:20.82 | Chair Luxembourg | Do we have a second? |
| 02:40:24.06 | Commissioner Graff | I'll second it for the sake of discussion. |
| 02:40:27.17 | Chair Luxembourg | Okay, thank you and further discussion. I'll look for raised hands. against your grabs. |
| 02:40:39.25 | Commissioner Graff | Yeah. |
| 02:40:40.95 | Chair Luxembourg | Thank you. |
| 02:40:40.97 | Commissioner Graff | Thank you. I think commissioner, Juniors made a really good point. that just You know, we could keep it in. just to keep it in. to keep the numbers up. because we don't really know in the future what the future will hold. I'm okay with keeping it. Uh, from that standpoint. sort of changed my mind there, but I think Um, we could do that. |
| 02:41:14.99 | Chair Luxembourg | Okay, further conversation, Rice-Jour Juniors. |
| 02:41:19.04 | Vice Chair Junius | And just a point of order now with Commissioner Feller. sidelined. We still need three votes to take action here, right? I think that's right. Okay. Well, I yeah, I appreciate Commissioner. Thank you. City Attorney Rudin. I appreciate Commissioner Graff's comments. I stand by my original statement. I'd like to keep them all in. |
| 02:41:42.50 | Commissioner Saad | In the interest of moving this forward, I'm gonna rescind my motion if I can on the floor. |
| 02:41:49.37 | Chair Luxembourg | uh, OK. Okay, you're gonna make a substitute motion? |
| 02:41:57.21 | Commissioner Saad | I will just rescind I don't I think my second as far as I'm understanding from Commissioner Graff has dissolved. And with that, I will rescind my motion and allow another commissioner to make a motion. |
| 02:42:12.86 | Chair Luxembourg | Okay, I'm going to mention a motion that we take off 927 Bridgeway. Not tied to anything else. It's, I'm looking at an aerial map of that. It is, it is off. Bridgeway, the owner doesn't want it on and it's not got, it's got, it doesn't look to me like it has frontage and I don't know if I can confirm that. And so I think that that one is difficult. The owner doesn't want it on. I'm going to make a motion that we remove Uh, 927 was added by us at the last, I'm gonna make sure I understand this. This one was added by us last Wednesday. Is that correct? |
| 02:42:53.44 | Commissioner Saad | This made it onto the planning commission recommendation. Yes, that is correct. |
| 02:42:58.11 | Chair Luxembourg | Okay, so I'm gonna make a motion that this one, I'll make a different motion if this doesn't go, but that 927 be removed. Is there a second to that? |
| 02:43:18.25 | Commissioner Saad | So I think we're going to end up at a stalemate if I'm understanding us correctly. |
| 02:43:21.52 | Chair Luxembourg | and understanding us I'm gonna try to get around that in a minute. So, but is there a second? |
| 02:43:30.11 | Commissioner Saad | I'll second that seeing what the intention here is. |
| 02:43:34.04 | Chair Luxembourg | Okay, Klesha, Director Phipps, could you take a roll call vote? |
| 02:43:42.09 | Brandon Phipps | Just as a final clarification, to city attorney, is it appropriate for me to be taking the roll call or city clerk be taking the roll call? |
| 02:43:53.41 | Sergio Rudin | I think it would be the city clerk at this meeting, since this is a joint special meeting. |
| 02:43:58.61 | Brandon Phipps | Yeah, I was happy to take the first roll call, but just wanted to make sure that We're moving forward in the right direction. |
| 02:44:03.42 | Chair Luxembourg | you |
| 02:44:04.91 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you. |
| 02:44:05.16 | Chair Luxembourg | Thank you. Can I hear some part? If you can have the city card, take a roll call, please. |
| 02:44:06.66 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you. |
| 02:44:06.68 | Commissioner Saad | I don't hear it. I think Commissioner Graff has a question. |
| 02:44:10.81 | Chair Luxembourg | Thank you, Commissioner. Yes. Can I hear? Can I have a motion again? The motion is to remove, I'm gonna make a different motion that just doesn't go, but the motion, which is made in the second is to remove just 927 from our recommendation of last Wednesday. |
| 02:44:30.93 | Brandon Phipps | And just as a point of clarification, 927 Bridgeway is site 208. Thank you. |
| 02:44:36.83 | Chair Luxembourg | Is 208, that's correct. |
| 02:44:41.68 | Walfred Solorzano | I don't know. Commissioner Saad. |
| 02:44:45.73 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 02:44:47.26 | Walfred Solorzano | Commissioner Feller. Thank you. Cheers. Commissioner Graff. No. Vice Mayor Junius. |
| 02:44:59.50 | Vice Chair Junius | I wouldn't look, I'm not the mayor, but okay. Vice Chair G. No. |
| 02:45:02.60 | Walfred Solorzano | I'm sorry, guys, cheers. I'm still there. and Chair Luxembourg. Thank you. |
| 02:45:10.80 | Chair Luxembourg | Yes. Okay, so City Attorney Rudin, a proposal to take out something on a 2-2 vote is that it doesn't pass, is that correct? |
| 02:45:24.35 | Sergio Rudin | Yes, so I think the commission's sort of path forward here are either somebody can, Uh, change their vote to make a passing motion, or you can have a vote to make no recommendation on the inclusion or exclusion of this particular site. And that's perfectly fine too, to move this item forward. |
| 02:45:44.03 | Chair Luxembourg | Uhm, uh, So, Can I ask, I need a question of Beth Thompson. |
| 02:46:01.21 | Chair Luxembourg | is site number 208 in the city council's working group recommendation. |
| 02:46:09.14 | Beth Thompson | Um, Yes, they didn't modify the recommendations for sites 207, 208, 209, and 210. So there's no modification there. |
| 02:46:18.45 | Chair Luxembourg | So there's no... but they weren't in the original thing that was sent to HCD. |
| 02:46:25.48 | Beth Thompson | They were not the originals. Well, let me back up. So let me go back to the Planning Commission sites page here. So... site. Let's see. |
| 02:46:43.61 | Beth Thompson | I believe. It is. And I'll have to go and pull up. One of the sites was in the inventory, but it was not identified as an opportunity site. So it was included in the inventory. but it was not an opportunity site. And I can look up the exact site number. It'll just take me a minute, which one was in the previous inventory that went to HCD. Thank you. |
| 02:47:04.56 | Commissioner Saad | May I make sure? |
| 02:47:06.72 | Vice Chair Junius | I think we should just make another motion. |
| 02:47:06.89 | Commissioner Saad | which is... I'd like to make another motion in the interest of moving this forward. As long as, you know, Commissioner Junius, to your point, if there's no harm for that property owner to have that included, then I will, I will make a motion to keep all sites 207, 208 and 210. on the opportunity list. |
| 02:47:34.39 | Vice Chair Junius | I'll second that. And I'd also like to comment that in the notes, The site may, it's an important key site that I think connects a couple of the sites. it's, um, I think is broader than actual building on it. But anyway, I do second that. |
| 02:47:53.51 | Chair Luxembourg | Thank you for that motion and that second. But before we have conversation, I do want clarity from Beth on whether it is or isn't in working in the City Council's working group recommendations. So I understand what's in each list so that when we get to this, we understand what we're Oh. how it's different, so to speak. |
| 02:48:31.99 | Beth Thompson | And bear with me for just a minute here while I zoom in on two maps and identify the specific parcel. |
| 02:48:34.03 | Chair Luxembourg | That's true. |
| 02:48:39.06 | Beth Thompson | is |
| 02:48:41.10 | Chair Luxembourg | I mean, to help you, you have counts on all these things. So it either is or isn't counted in the numbers. And I just want to make sure we're keeping the counts correct, that's why. |
| 02:48:49.49 | Beth Thompson | Correct. So this is counted. All four sites are counted as part of the working group's recommendations. |
| 02:48:56.24 | Chair Luxembourg | of the city council's working group. Yes. All right, thank you. That's good for that clarification. With that, we have a motion on the floor. City Clerk, if you could take the roll call vote, that would be appreciated. |
| 02:48:57.57 | Beth Thompson | Yes. |
| 02:49:11.05 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 02:49:19.12 | Chair Luxembourg | We can't hear you. |
| 02:49:23.14 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:49:23.15 | Walfred Solorzano | Sorry, Commissioner Graff. |
| 02:49:24.15 | Unknown | you |
| 02:49:25.18 | Walfred Solorzano | Yeah. Commissioner Saad. |
| 02:49:28.03 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 02:49:29.26 | Walfred Solorzano | Vice Chair Juniors. Yes. and Chair Luxembourg. |
| 02:49:36.26 | Chair Luxembourg | Okay, that passes. Moving on to, if Commissioner Fela can come back. Hello, welcome again. We have 84, we'll do them all together. We're not gonna do them all together, but we'll talk about them all together. 84, 211, 303, 305, 306. Let's talk about 84, which is MLK. I've heard discussion of, we had a much larger number of, Commissioner Feller, can you help me? Or Beth, can you help me? The number we have in our recommendation is, |
| 02:49:36.74 | Walfred Solorzano | Bye. |
| 02:50:12.83 | Chair Luxembourg | Oh, wow. |
| 02:50:13.19 | Commissioner Feller | So, So Chair Luxenberg, I think that the number that we had was about 152. I believe what the city council working group is recommending is closer to 70. Based on the vote that we just had on city hall, we would add 10 to that. And I'm ready to make a motion regarding this to approve the City Council Working Group recommendation. for sub parcel one on site 84 with the addition of 10 units. So I'm ready to do that after discussion here. |
| 02:50:43.12 | Chair Luxembourg | Okay, so let me just be clear to summarize the number we had last Wednesday was 150. Something or 100 and |
| 02:50:50.60 | Unknown | 152, I believe. Thank you. |
| 02:50:52.07 | Chair Luxembourg | Okay, so we're at what we're actually doing because we're using our recommendation as a basis we're reducing it from 152 down to |
| 02:50:52.10 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:51:01.95 | Chair Luxembourg | 80, basically. 80, which is reflecting the city council working groups reduction, but adding the 10 units from city hall to this site. |
| 02:51:02.09 | Unknown | No, no, no. Basically. |
| 02:51:14.00 | Commissioner Feller | Correct. |
| 02:51:15.89 | Chair Luxembourg | That's great. |
| 02:51:16.06 | Commissioner Feller | That's correct. And I'm ready to support that. |
| 02:51:16.16 | Chair Luxembourg | Correct. Okay, and in order to expedite, I'll take a motion. I'll take that motion if you wanna make it. |
| 02:51:26.58 | Commissioner Feller | Well, do you want any other commissioner to weigh in? |
| 02:51:29.63 | Chair Luxembourg | I do, but I want to put the motion on the floor to discuss. |
| 02:51:32.47 | Commissioner Feller | I'd like to make a motion regarding 84. that we reduce the Planning Commission Working Group recommendation for 152 units on the site. to the City Council Working Group recommendation of 70 plus the additional 10 that we just displaced from the City Hall site. site 52 for a total of 80 units on subparcel or sub area, excuse me, sub area one on site 84. |
| 02:52:04.17 | Chair Luxembourg | Thank you for that motion. Is there a second? |
| 02:52:10.91 | Commissioner Saad | May I ask a point of clarification? |
| 02:52:12.81 | Chair Luxembourg | Yes. |
| 02:52:13.71 | Commissioner Saad | Is that With these numbers, does that make us lean on the city council recommendation for the additional units No. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that I second that motion. |
| 02:52:26.55 | Chair Luxembourg | Thank you. I just point of information, but just logistics. Both Beth Thompson and Director Phipps, you're taking good notes on all these because you're going to have to know what we voted and if it gets approved later, it'll get into the report correctly. So I'm relying on the two of you. Is that fair to say? Absolutely. Yes, Chair. Yes, Chair. Thank you. |
| 02:52:47.29 | Brandon Phipps | Absolutely. That's true. Thank you. |
| 02:52:50.24 | Chair Luxembourg | Good. Without any discussion on 84, there's a discussion to significantly reduce what we recommended last Wednesday, but to add in the low and moderate income units, primarily the five and the five. Thank you. from the city hall so that those numbers |
| 02:53:08.64 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:53:08.99 | Chair Luxembourg | weight reduced. That's my understanding, correct? |
| 02:53:14.68 | Joan Cox | May I ask a clarifying question of that motion? |
| 02:53:17.92 | Chair Luxembourg | Yes. |
| 02:53:18.42 | Joan Cox | The City Council Working Group recommended removing the tennis court from area one. THE Planning Commission did not. So does your motion embody removing the tennis court or retaining the tennis court. |
| 02:53:30.71 | Chair Luxembourg | Thank you. Okay, that's a good question. I'm gonna ask the maker of the motion what her intent is on that. Thank you for that question. |
| 02:53:37.56 | Commissioner Feller | I certainly wouldn't hold up a motion because of the tennis court. So if the tennis courts need to be excluded, that's fine. I'm calling, I'm still calling it the sub area one. |
| 02:53:37.68 | Chair Luxembourg | I certainly don't. |
| 02:53:46.23 | Commissioner Feller | because that was what was identified on, Beth's original a site map that was included in the draft HCD submission in October, which excluded the tennis courts. I'm fine with that and that with that clarification, my motion stands so and seconded by Commissioner Saad. |
| 02:53:59.50 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:54:07.41 | Commissioner Feller | If there's not any other discussion, we should vote. |
| 02:54:09.89 | Chair Luxembourg | Okay, so it's 80 units and not on the tennis court. Is that a big summary of that? Okay, thank you. I wanna make sure that Commissioner Graff or Commissioner Vice-Chair Jimmias don't have additional comments now that we have a motion on the board. No comment. |
| 02:54:24.59 | Commissioner Graff | I do have a question. Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. |
| 02:54:27.02 | Chair Luxembourg | Oh yeah. |
| 02:54:27.36 | Commissioner Graff | Thank you. |
| 02:54:27.64 | Chair Luxembourg | No comments, Vice-Chair General. Thank you. And Commissioner Graff, ask your question, please. |
| 02:54:33.45 | Commissioner Graff | Yeah, I'm okay with it, but that reduces our contingency quite a bit, doesn't it? We're losing more there. |
| 02:54:43.49 | Unknown | No. |
| 02:54:46.66 | Commissioner Graff | Um, |
| 02:54:48.08 | Unknown | No. |
| 02:54:48.65 | Commissioner Graff | The site was, what did we say it was before? over 100, 100 and something, and we're down to 80. |
| 02:54:56.01 | Commissioner Feller | and work out. Commissioner Graff, it reduces what the Planning Commission recommendation was, We are going through some of the other sites that the City Council Working Group has recommended. Thank you. |
| 02:55:07.59 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:55:07.62 | Commissioner Feller | which are sort of next on our list here to discuss after we're finished here with 84. And they, as you know, yield a larger buffer so we can get to those separately. But I'm going to leave my motion as is. |
| 02:55:22.28 | Chair Luxembourg | Yeah, and just to clarify for commissioner Graff, you are correct. That would be reducing the numbers significantly, but there are additions that the city council working group as commissioner fellow has added. We have not voiced in on those yet, but if we were to accept those, our numbers will actually be higher, not lower. But yes, at the moment, because we haven't gotten to that. Yes, that's correct. I think that is going to be rectified in the future. |
| 02:55:51.29 | Commissioner Graff | Okay. |
| 02:55:52.04 | Chair Luxembourg | Thank you. With that, I'll entertain a roll call vote. Mr. City Clerk, if you could do that, that would be helpful. |
| 02:56:00.86 | Walfred Solorzano | Commissioner Feller? you |
| 02:56:02.19 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 02:56:03.61 | Walfred Solorzano | Commissioner Graf, Yeah. Commissioner Saar. |
| 02:56:07.48 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 02:56:08.64 | Walfred Solorzano | Vice Chair Juniors. know. and Chair Luxembourg. |
| 02:56:14.04 | Chair Luxembourg | Yes. And that passes on a four to one vote. Okay, now we're on for 2-11, 3-03, 3-05, and 3-06. And which commissioner, I gotta go back to my notes, raise those, I think that's... Commissioner Saad, I believe. Can you remind me which one those are? |
| 02:56:36.25 | Commissioner Saad | Yes, I was just looking for, I wasn't, So much to make a motion just to have a general discussion. I don't know if we have any conflicts. I don't believe we do. But for the inclusion from the city council recommendation. um, of those sites, um, I would be of the mindset that was not part of the original planning commission recommendation. And so with that, I'd like to discuss potentially removing them, but under with the understanding of, maybe from Beth, what that does to our numbers before I would move forward so strongly with that opinion, but Conceptually, that is what I'd like to discuss. |
| 02:57:20.98 | Chair Luxembourg | Okay. |
| 02:57:23.01 | Commissioner Saad | Thank you. |
| 02:57:23.03 | Jill Hoffman | Excuse me, Chair Luxembourg, I just want to ask the consultant. Beth, I think 306 and 211 are... |
| 02:57:24.97 | Chair Luxembourg | Oh, yeah. |
| 02:57:29.51 | Jill Hoffman | Misrepresented on that part. |
| 02:57:30.40 | Beth Thompson | and it on |
| 02:57:32.68 | Jill Hoffman | new |
| 02:57:32.97 | Beth Thompson | Clarify. I am not sure that they're misrepresented, but what is the Let me make sure I understand the question. |
| 02:57:38.82 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:57:38.84 | Jill Hoffman | I mean, make sure. |
| 02:57:40.73 | Beth Thompson | believe three or six um |
| 02:57:42.03 | Jill Hoffman | was taken off. |
| 02:57:44.14 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 02:57:44.15 | Jill Hoffman | and I'm |
| 02:57:44.37 | Beth Thompson | back now. I believe we removed 3001 Bridgeway across the street, but kept 306, unless my notes are incorrect. So I removed 307 and kept 306. So let me... |
| 02:58:00.56 | Commissioner Feller | Yeah. Can you pull up a map actually and show us these? |
| 02:58:05.82 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 02:58:05.87 | Commissioner Feller | Yeah. |
| 02:58:05.91 | Jill Hoffman | So- |
| 02:58:05.99 | Beth Thompson | All right. |
| 02:58:06.02 | Jill Hoffman | All right. |
| 02:58:06.06 | Beth Thompson | Okay. Thank you. |
| 02:58:06.51 | Jill Hoffman | I'm working off of slide 16, Beth. |
| 02:58:09.60 | Beth Thompson | Okay. let me just pop up my map here of the sites. Zoning maps are always the easiest to share here. |
| 02:58:23.94 | Beth Thompson | So let me zoom in a little bit. |
| 02:58:36.28 | Unknown | So. God. |
| 02:58:37.12 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 02:58:37.16 | Unknown | It's... |
| 02:58:40.85 | Beth Thompson | And I'll note 211 was included in the Planning Commission recommendation. So the council working group's recommendation doesn't change 211. 303 would be a new site. And then let me pop open my matrix here. |
| 02:59:00.97 | Beth Thompson | 303 is the new addition, and then 305 and 306 are recommended for addition. 303 would accommodate 72 units, 18 of those. very low, low and moderate. 305 would accommodate 22 units, all above moderate. And then 306 would accommodate a split between a moderate and above moderate, so 20 units. And so if those were removed, then we would need to go back to the drawing board to replace those because collectively you would be below your... very low in low numbers and really reduce your moderate and above moderate numbers. |
| 02:59:43.76 | Jill Hoffman | Let me ask by address. So are either of these 2,700 Bridgeway or 3,001 Bridgeway? Um, |
| 02:59:51.97 | Beth Thompson | No, 2700 Bridgeway, I believe is 304 and 307 is 3001 Bridgeway. |
| 02:59:59.32 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, I'm sorry, you can say that one more time. 2,600 is three or four. |
| 03:00:01.43 | Beth Thompson | So- is 304 and then 3001 is 307. |
| 03:00:08.28 | Chair Luxembourg | Okay, great. Beth, can I ask some clarification? Cause I'm looking at the matrix and I hope it's the latest matrix. And first of all, three, |
| 03:00:08.32 | Beth Thompson | Bye. Bye. |
| 03:00:16.81 | Chair Luxembourg | 2700, it says site number is 305. I think that might be the confusion. Oh, let's... |
| 03:00:22.73 | Beth Thompson | let me pull up the matrix that I may have a typo and what I put together for tonight. So let |
| 03:00:25.58 | Chair Luxembourg | Yeah. You can pull up the matrix and before you leave the map, we pull up the matrix in a second, but I'm, um, I'm seeing for 303, which you'll see in the matrix, 90, not whatever number you gave for them. So... |
| 03:00:44.50 | Beth Thompson | Sure. Let me check here. |
| 03:00:49.15 | Chair Luxembourg | So before, let me just ask this, Gawala, we have this map. 303 is on Harvard Drive. It's currently office. It's like it's offices and the bank there, I believe. Is that correct? |
| 03:01:03.23 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, it was the parking lot that the owner... wanted to convert. |
| 03:01:09.67 | Chair Luxembourg | And behind the bank and the offices there on 303. |
| 03:01:12.75 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 03:01:13.79 | Chair Luxembourg | 305 is offices, I believe. |
| 03:01:14.08 | Jill Hoffman | No problem. |
| 03:01:18.09 | Jill Hoffman | 305 is Avatar. |
| 03:01:20.24 | Chair Luxembourg | Oh, that's everything. |
| 03:01:20.24 | Beth Thompson | Oh, that's Evertown. |
| 03:01:21.71 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 03:01:21.72 | Beth Thompson | No, 72 is Avatar. I think 305 is the restaurant. Yeah. |
| 03:01:21.84 | Jill Hoffman | 72 is |
| 03:01:25.98 | Chair Luxembourg | His office. that's, Right, 72 is The 72 is Avatar. is in 305 offices. 305, I have those 20. |
| 03:01:38.97 | Brandon Phipps | at the 9650 Bridgeway, former |
| 03:01:42.36 | Joan Cox | That's Feng Nian, the former restaurant Feng Nian. |
| 03:01:45.70 | Commissioner Feller | Exactly, exactly. Okay. You know, Chair, as we go through these, I wanna point something out just as a point of reference. |
| 03:01:46.93 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:01:46.95 | Joan Cox | OK. |
| 03:01:53.95 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 03:01:54.04 | Chair Luxembourg | does. |
| 03:01:54.41 | Commissioner Feller | Thank you. In the housing element advisory committee cycle, let's say from October 21 to October 22, Thank you. these sites were highly desirable. At the time that we started with HIAC, There was not owner interest. There is now. And these are desirable sites because they are on Bridgeway and they are north of Harbor. And so I'm delighted to see them on here, but I just wanted to point that out as reference. I think it's very good news that these are now available sites. because this is something that HIAC really wanted. |
| 03:02:36.12 | Chair Luxembourg | That's right. Okay, I just wanna make sure I understand what they are. Avatars is 72. and The restaurant you mentioned is must be 304, not 305. |
| 03:02:53.74 | Unknown | No, it's three or five. |
| 03:02:54.92 | Joan Cox | No, it's 3.05. 304. |
| 03:02:57.03 | Chair Luxembourg | 3-0-4. |
| 03:02:58.25 | Joan Cox | is 2700 Bridgeway. That is not a restaurant. |
| 03:03:03.04 | Chair Luxembourg | So the Chinese restaurant is to, when you're looking at Bridgeway is to the right of avatars. And if 72 is avatars, |
| 03:03:14.55 | Commissioner Graff | Thank you. |
| 03:03:14.67 | Chair Luxembourg | Then... |
| 03:03:15.44 | Commissioner Graff | I'm going to go. Isn't 305 those kind of warehouse buildings there? |
| 03:03:20.35 | Commissioner Feller | You guys, let's get back to focusing on what we have here pre-motion on these sites. |
| 03:03:28.74 | Chair Luxembourg | We need to know what they are though. I mean, we need to make sure we have them correctly identified. |
| 03:03:33.77 | Commissioner Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:03:33.79 | Beth Thompson | Do you have a Google map or do you guys want to? I'm actually pulling up the Marin map so I can cross-reference the APNs the sites just to make sure we've got the correct sites identified. So it'll just take me a minute to... |
| 03:03:47.59 | Chair Luxembourg | So it'll just be. Okay. Yeah. |
| 03:03:49.94 | Beth Thompson | Zoom over. |
| 03:03:50.00 | Chair Luxembourg | Zim. You know, these are important numbers to add and I wanna make sure that we all understand what the current uses are because the HCD has asked about current uses on this. |
| 03:04:00.95 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:04:00.97 | Beth Thompson | Yes. |
| 03:04:02.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:04:02.03 | Beth Thompson | it. |
| 03:04:02.34 | Unknown | you |
| 03:04:05.12 | Beth Thompson | A moment while I get all of my maps in order here. I'll make it. |
| 03:04:12.75 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:04:12.78 | Beth Thompson | Yes. |
| 03:04:13.17 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:04:23.43 | Beth Thompson | So 304. Google Maps does not tell me what 304... But 304 is 2650 Bridgeway. So it is, if you're looking at avatars, it's directly to the right of avatar. So if you're facing avatar, it's to the right. And then 305 is where this Sausalito Classics car storage and North Sales. So it looks like |
| 03:04:48.51 | Unknown | It is. |
| 03:04:57.44 | Beth Thompson | Let's see, office slash industrial. Um, |
| 03:05:05.54 | Beth Thompson | Yeah, mixture of kind of an large office building and some industrial uses. So that would be 305. And then 306 is a narrow parcel. that is 3000 Bridgeway and it's Parasail is what it's called on Google Maps. |
| 03:05:31.76 | Chair Luxembourg | Okay, and so the Chinese restaurant is likely to be 304. |
| 03:05:37.33 | Beth Thompson | Yes, yes it is. |
| 03:05:38.36 | Chair Luxembourg | Okay, good. Okay, so let's now, now that we, and the ones we're talking about are, |
| 03:05:39.93 | Beth Thompson | Okay. |
| 03:05:45.14 | Chair Luxembourg | We said 211, but 301, 305, and 306. Now let's go to the matrix that you had up. That would be helpful, Beth. |
| 03:05:54.44 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:05:54.47 | Beth Thompson | Okay, so we've got... Let's see, let me share that. |
| 03:05:59.67 | Commissioner Feller | So chair Luxenberg, I think we're talking three sites here 303 305 306 211 was always already in the planning commission recommended plan. |
| 03:06:10.89 | Chair Luxembourg | Yes, no, I understand. I just wanted to see it on the matrix. |
| 03:06:14.20 | Commissioner Feller | Okay. |
| 03:06:14.60 | Chair Luxembourg | Thank you. And it's just above it on the right track. Thank you. |
| 03:06:19.18 | Beth Thompson | So 305, 306... |
| 03:06:19.25 | Chair Luxembourg | Oh, |
| 03:06:22.94 | Beth Thompson | And three out of three. |
| 03:06:23.16 | Chair Luxembourg | When I said matrix, I meant the actual 10 minutes. |
| 03:06:27.38 | Beth Thompson | Oh. |
| 03:06:28.00 | Chair Luxembourg | Oh. |
| 03:06:28.36 | Beth Thompson | Yes. |
| 03:06:28.86 | Chair Luxembourg | Because the numbers you have |
| 03:06:28.88 | Beth Thompson | Let me. |
| 03:06:29.41 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:06:31.57 | Chair Luxembourg | You said something about for 303, I thought 90 was in the matrix and you gave a number that was less than that. |
| 03:06:39.53 | Beth Thompson | Let me zoom on over to the matrix and hopefully. So for 303, we have 90 units. Thank you. |
| 03:06:47.88 | Chair Luxembourg | Okay, that's what I thought. And you said the number you gave was slightly something less than that, but it is 90 is what you're saying. |
| 03:06:47.90 | Beth Thompson | Okay, that's what I thought. Okay. |
| 03:06:54.13 | Beth Thompson | 90 is 303, yes. |
| 03:06:55.54 | Chair Luxembourg | Okay, and then you can see on the bottom there, the two, four, three down, that's where the typo is. Yes. |
| 03:07:02.33 | Beth Thompson | Yes, this where you have this 305 right here. |
| 03:07:05.85 | Chair Luxembourg | Yeah. |
| 03:07:06.06 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, that should be 304. |
| 03:07:08.60 | Chair Luxembourg | Okay. |
| 03:07:09.60 | Beth Thompson | Yeah. |
| 03:07:10.38 | Chair Luxembourg | So 304, we're not talking about at the moment. Yeah. |
| 03:07:16.20 | Unknown | So there's only three sites, 303, 305, 306. |
| 03:07:21.53 | Chair Luxembourg | Okay, and can I get a clarification from the city council working group? Is 304 out recommended out at this point? |
| 03:07:30.69 | Beth Thompson | Yes, that's 2700 Bridgeway and it was recommended for... Removal. Removal. Right. |
| 03:07:36.38 | Chair Luxembourg | So we've got- And it was not in the planning commission report to begin with. So two 11's in our report already. And then we would need to take a motion to recommend to add 303, 305, and 306. |
| 03:07:41.88 | Beth Thompson | No. |
| 03:07:46.07 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:07:46.10 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:07:52.80 | Commissioner Feller | Bye. I'm ready to make that motion. |
| 03:07:57.12 | Chair Luxembourg | Just to get it on the floor, Commissioner Feller, that would be helpful. Do you want to make that motion? |
| 03:08:01.98 | Commissioner Feller | I'd like to make a motion to include 303 305 and 306. in the housing element plan. |
| 03:08:10.92 | Chair Luxembourg | Second. There's a second. Okay. And now can we go back to what either the first chart you showed? I just want to know what the numbers are for those, Beth. So either the slide that the first slide you had that was easier to read is probably fine for what I'm asking right now. Okay, so 303, 305, 306 is 90, 22, and 20, and then there's the breakdown. So we're adding 100, and to the Planning Commission's report from last Wednesday, we're adding 132 units. Is that correct information? Correct. Okay. Okay. And with that, any comments or additional comments from commissioners? If I can just see a raise of hands. Okay, having none, we can go to a roll call vote. I'll ask the city clerk to take that vote, please. |
| 03:09:24.91 | Unknown | City Clerk. |
| 03:09:25.90 | Walfred Solorzano | Sorry. Commissioner Feller. |
| 03:09:28.67 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 03:09:29.61 | Walfred Solorzano | Commissioner Graff, |
| 03:09:30.69 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:09:30.71 | Walfred Solorzano | Yeah. |
| 03:09:30.76 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:09:30.98 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Commissioner Saad. |
| 03:09:33.34 | Unknown | Oh. |
| 03:09:34.57 | Walfred Solorzano | LifeShare Genius. Yes. and share Luxembourg. Yes. |
| 03:09:38.89 | Chair Luxembourg | Thank you. Okay, so we've now dealt with any recusals that we've needed. We've added some units. We now have plenty of buffer. My question, I guess, of Commissioner Feller, is there any additional items that the city council working group have added that we haven't added or haven't discussed? |
| 03:10:03.21 | Commissioner Feller | Well, as we mentioned, they certainly edited the programs to reflect the HCD formal comments that we received, they've incorporated as well, the proposed amendments that the planning commission made to those programs based on oral comment from HCD so those are incorporated I did correspond with the City Council working group yesterday regarding the programs and they have included my edits and additions into the programs. And I want to thank Beth for also being very involved in that. The programs have not fundamentally changed. They've added more robust language. around it and then program 20 that was previously I'll say intentionally left blank, meaning held for future need is now dedicated to infrastructure. both utility and road infrastructure, primary infrastructure. I've reviewed that and I'm quite happy with it. And I'd be willing to make a motion to approve all edits and amendments to the program's |
| 03:11:20.35 | Chair Luxembourg | Okay. Very happy to second that. |
| 03:11:20.92 | Commissioner Feller | Very happy to say. |
| 03:11:22.44 | Chair Luxembourg | Let me just clarify that motion. |
| 03:11:22.64 | Commissioner Feller | Mm-hmm. |
| 03:11:25.12 | Chair Luxembourg | The program changes that we recommended last Wednesday, plus all any of the changes to the programs that the city council working group did in this presentation tonight, we're suggesting that our resolution will include all of those program changes, which address all the HCV comments and that kind of stuff. Is that, that's just clear. It's not changing the motion. |
| 03:11:49.71 | Commissioner Feller | That's correct. |
| 03:11:50.64 | Chair Luxembourg | Okay, thank you. Any comments or discussion on that from any of the commissioners? Just by raising hands, please. Okay, I'm going to ask the city clerk to take a roll call vote on that part of the, we're eventually going to have one whole motion, but I want to take a vote on that part of it at this point. So city clerk, if you could do that. |
| 03:12:13.03 | Walfred Solorzano | Commissioner Feller? Thank you. |
| 03:12:14.30 | Unknown | Yes. Thank you. |
| 03:12:15.41 | Walfred Solorzano | and graph |
| 03:12:16.49 | Chair Luxembourg | you |
| 03:12:16.52 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:12:16.54 | Chair Luxembourg | Yeah. |
| 03:12:16.62 | Unknown | I don't know. |
| 03:12:16.67 | Chair Luxembourg | Thank you. |
| 03:12:17.42 | Walfred Solorzano | Commissioner Saad. |
| 03:12:18.45 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 03:12:19.90 | Walfred Solorzano | Vice Chair Junius. Yes. And Chair Luxembourg. |
| 03:12:23.88 | Chair Luxembourg | Yeah. Okay, so now we have the program elements. We've taken city hall out. We've added 10 units to MLK. We've added in 303, 305, 306, 211 was in there. And then let me ask this question. We had put in Alta Vista. Is Alta Vista, there's a question for Beth Thompson. Is Alta Vista in the city council working group recommendation? |
| 03:12:53.21 | Beth Thompson | I'll to mirror yes that site continues to be in the recommendation, I will point out there were two sites included in the Council working groups recommendation that you have not addressed sites 301 and 302 and i'm not sure if that was intentionally just to. |
| 03:12:55.07 | Chair Luxembourg | continues to |
| 03:13:07.13 | Beth Thompson | not discuss them or I just want to make sure that's raised. |
| 03:13:10.17 | Chair Luxembourg | No, what I'm actually trying to do here is to parse this out to see what we've missed. So that comment is very helpful. So at this point, I think we, are those the only two things we haven't addressed, Ms. Thompson, or are there any others? |
| 03:13:28.48 | Beth Thompson | That is it as far as I can tell. |
| 03:13:28.55 | Chair Luxembourg | That is it as far Okay, so let's have a, can you bring back up your, if you can share your screen again, so I can talk to those 301 and 302, and we'll have put the addresses, it'll have the addresses. Yes, it's 302. |
| 03:13:44.22 | Beth Thompson | Okay. 301 and 302. |
| 03:13:47.34 | Chair Luxembourg | And 301 is 20 units on some sort of what type of site is that? |
| 03:13:54.64 | Beth Thompson | In here, let me just share the map of that, those sites that probably will be a little easier. |
| 03:13:59.26 | Commissioner Saad | a little. |
| 03:14:00.98 | Beth Thompson | Well, that's happening. |
| 03:14:01.03 | Commissioner Saad | All that. I'm definitely within a thousand feet, if not 500 feet of the locust site. So I will recuse myself. |
| 03:14:09.28 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you, Commissioner Saad. I want to give the opportunity to other commissioners, potentially in connection with 302, to recuse themselves. |
| 03:14:21.01 | Chair Luxembourg | So we're 302. |
| 03:14:23.15 | Commissioner Feller | I have no |
| 03:14:24.03 | Unknown | conflict. |
| 03:14:24.69 | Commissioner Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:14:25.36 | Chair Luxembourg | 302 is in the water, right? |
| 03:14:28.15 | Commissioner Feller | I'm... |
| 03:14:28.20 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 03:14:28.22 | Commissioner Feller | Correct. |
| 03:14:28.42 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:14:28.45 | Chair Luxembourg | It's on Humboldt Avenue, which is a water street, right? |
| 03:14:28.49 | Commissioner Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:14:28.59 | Unknown | That's a sound humble. |
| 03:14:32.87 | Chair Luxembourg | I believe it's adjacent. |
| 03:14:33.97 | Brandon Phipps | Oh. |
| 03:14:34.71 | Chair Luxembourg | Thank you. |
| 03:14:35.35 | Brandon Phipps | the Galilee Harbor area. |
| 03:14:37.85 | Commissioner Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:14:37.87 | Chair Luxembourg | Okay. Um, |
| 03:14:40.82 | Commissioner Feller | So Richard, you're going to have to. Yeah, right, right. |
| 03:14:44.48 | Chair Luxembourg | Okay, so what were the two 301 and 302 Beth? And I think that's the question. |
| 03:14:44.53 | Commissioner Feller | Okay. |
| 03:14:50.90 | Beth Thompson | Correct, 301 and 302. |
| 03:14:51.47 | Chair Luxembourg | Okay. Okay, so both commissioners, let me ask, Commissioner Saad, do you have a conflict with both 301 and 302 or just one of them? |
| 03:15:03.72 | Commissioner Saad | I believe I'm within a thousand feet of both of them and out of an abundance of caution, I'm gonna recuse from both. |
| 03:15:10.10 | Chair Luxembourg | Okay, so now we're gonna move to have a discussion in 301 and 302, both commissioners, if you could recuse yourselves and we'll invite you back after we have this conversation. |
| 03:15:10.32 | Commissioner Saad | Thank you. |
| 03:15:22.23 | Chair Luxembourg | So 301 and 302, the proposal, these are new sites added by the city council working group. They're both in the water. They both would be some sort of either houseboats or actual boats. Can I get some clarity on whether they would be houseboats or live aboard kind of boats? |
| 03:15:41.08 | Beth Thompson | And. Let me just quickly clarify. I'm going to zoom in on the map here for these because I believe 301 is not... the water It looks like. |
| 03:15:54.02 | Chair Luxembourg | because |
| 03:15:54.26 | Beth Thompson | It's partially in the water. So I think so for site 301, |
| 03:15:54.55 | Chair Luxembourg | is positive. |
| 03:15:58.53 | Beth Thompson | I think the intent was for the land based portion of this site. And then I noted in the matrix, the recommendation that the owner had also included this site. So it would be the land based portion of this site. Plus this site would be site 301. So just the area to the north. And then site 302 is in the water and that would be anticipated to be |
| 03:16:14.17 | Unknown | insight. |
| 03:16:19.07 | Beth Thompson | Most likely, the details, it would be water-based housing, the details of which have not yet been determined. Thank you. |
| 03:16:27.24 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:16:27.34 | Chair Luxembourg | So, okay. |
| 03:16:27.42 | Unknown | Oh. |
| 03:16:27.81 | Unknown | of the |
| 03:16:27.98 | Unknown | Thank you. Yeah. |
| 03:16:29.02 | Chair Luxembourg | Can I just ask, can we bring up a Google map? Can you bring up a Google map so we can see? Yeah, absolutely. What it is. Let's see. Commissioner Fowler, you had a question. |
| 03:16:34.02 | Commissioner Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:16:34.04 | Beth Thompson | Yeah, absolutely. |
| 03:16:34.96 | Commissioner Feller | Okay. |
| 03:16:36.01 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 03:16:36.15 | Commissioner Feller | Exactly. Thank you chair. So just a question through the chair here, Beth, as you're pulling up maps and so on. Is there a specific opportunity to specify the type of water-based housing here? |
| 03:16:53.93 | Beth Thompson | So these sites are being identified for rezoning and that rezoning would probably have that greater level of detail. So all of these rezoning sites will come back to the planning commission for consideration. So you'll have the opportunity to add and subtract some of the sites, make modifications, you know, some fine tuning of the sites a little bit more at that point as well. So I would be |
| 03:16:54.02 | Commissioner Feller | I'm sorry. |
| 03:17:15.13 | Beth Thompson | If you went to the place a restriction on it, you may, but you will also be able to look at it in more detail when it's rezoned. |
| 03:17:22.06 | Commissioner Feller | Okay. |
| 03:17:23.63 | Beth Thompson | So- |
| 03:17:23.65 | Commissioner Feller | I'm ready to put a motion on the floor, Cher, when you're ready. |
| 03:17:28.05 | Chair Luxembourg | Okay, I'd like to see a map. I just want to make sure that everyone really understands where these are. Okay, so let me. It's a little harder because they're in the water. Part of them are in the water. Yes. Okay. So... |
| 03:17:40.86 | Beth Thompson | So there we go. So the site 302 is right here. |
| 03:17:51.39 | Chair Luxembourg | So this is all for |
| 03:17:51.59 | Beth Thompson | So there's Sausalito Cruising Club in Gala. |
| 03:17:54.68 | Chair Luxembourg | a gal Let me just ask this. This is the new beach that we put in, or I don't know if it's new, but the beach off of Dumfey Park, there's a little sand beach there when it's lower tide. We're talking about putting in some sort of marina structure there or houseboat structure into the water. |
| 03:18:14.02 | Unknown | you |
| 03:18:14.04 | Chair Luxembourg | Correct. Okay. Correct. And are we talking about house votes or actual votes? |
| 03:18:14.54 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 03:18:14.69 | Unknown | you |
| 03:18:14.97 | Unknown | OK. |
| 03:18:19.76 | Chair Luxembourg | or we could be either. |
| 03:18:21.75 | Beth Thompson | And at this point, it could be either. |
| 03:18:23.77 | Chair Luxembourg | Okay, and that number is 30... |
| 03:18:26.96 | Beth Thompson | 302. |
| 03:18:27.22 | Chair Luxembourg | CO2. 302 and then 303 is closer to a partial land. So point that one out. |
| 03:18:34.98 | Brandon Phipps | I believe it's 301 and that's located at 225 Locust, but a portion of it is in the water. |
| 03:18:43.18 | Chair Luxembourg | Thank you. So just on Google Maps, sort of circle it for us. |
| 03:18:48.06 | Beth Thompson | So yeah, I'm zooming in and let me just make sure I've got the correct. So it would be This and across the street. So it would be, I believe, let me see. |
| 03:18:55.25 | Chair Luxembourg | This |
| 03:19:02.33 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. doesn't want to give me the address. Thank you. |
| 03:19:06.96 | Chair Luxembourg | is this a site where we were storing temporary fill until the joinery |
| 03:19:07.02 | Beth Thompson | you know, so, |
| 03:19:07.48 | Commissioner Feller | Thank you. |
| 03:19:07.50 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 03:19:10.70 | Commissioner Feller | It's at the end of the joinery. |
| 03:19:14.85 | Chair Luxembourg | you |
| 03:19:14.87 | Brandon Phipps | Yeah, and the on land portion, see where it reads just like Alice? I believe that that is 225 locust. |
| 03:19:25.40 | Beth Thompson | Yes. |
| 03:19:25.96 | Brandon Phipps | Thank you. |
| 03:19:26.03 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. So it would be this in the area across the street. |
| 03:19:27.04 | Brandon Phipps | Yeah. |
| 03:19:30.06 | Chair Luxembourg | you know, well, the street is a water street, but- |
| 03:19:33.70 | Beth Thompson | Right, right. It's a street on the map, Humboldt Street. |
| 03:19:34.02 | Chair Luxembourg | Okay. So this is the, is this between what this calls public free part? There's a public parking lot there. And Is it between there and where shades of green landscape is? Thank you. |
| 03:19:51.73 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:19:51.95 | Chair Luxembourg | of Okay, so it's not where we had landfill that we temporarily restored and moved out No, no. |
| 03:19:59.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:19:60.00 | Unknown | No. |
| 03:20:00.33 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:20:01.57 | Chair Luxembourg | Okay. |
| 03:20:01.60 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:20:02.46 | Chair Luxembourg | Okay, so this is... Um... uh... Okay. So everybody understand where this is. I get it now. Anybody else have questions? Thank you. All right, if we don't have any questions, yes, Commissioner Fowler, are willing to entertain a motion. |
| 03:20:20.72 | Commissioner Feller | OK, Beth, can we go back to your matrix as we do this? |
| 03:20:24.25 | Beth Thompson | Absolutely. Let me just... switch between items here. All right. |
| 03:20:33.24 | Commissioner Feller | Because I just want to check 301 and 302. Whoa. |
| 03:20:37.02 | Vice Chair Junius | I would suggest we do separate motions on each parcel. |
| 03:20:39.94 | Commissioner Feller | I agree. |
| 03:20:40.61 | Vice Chair Junius | Yeah, I'd agree with that. |
| 03:20:41.91 | Commissioner Feller | I would so I'd like to make a motion one motion |
| 03:20:41.95 | Chair Luxembourg | Bye. |
| 03:20:46.52 | Commissioner Feller | to exclude site 301 at 225 locust. |
| 03:20:53.79 | Vice Chair Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:20:53.81 | Chair Luxembourg | Take it off the list. |
| 03:20:55.46 | Commissioner Feller | Take it off the list. |
| 03:20:57.69 | Chair Luxembourg | This is the one that's partial land and partial water, correct? |
| 03:21:00.56 | Commissioner Feller | This is the one by Dunphy Park. I'd like to make a separate motion when you're ready for 302 to stay on. |
| 03:21:03.36 | Vice Chair Junius | Thanks. |
| 03:21:07.95 | Vice Chair Junius | I actually think that the, isn't it? Isn't 302 the one that's actually in the water next to the, |
| 03:21:08.46 | Commissioner Feller | I think that's true. |
| 03:21:13.59 | Vice Chair Junius | next to the cruising club off of Dunphy Park. |
| 03:21:16.20 | Commissioner Feller | Oh, I'm sorry. I got the. Sorry, I'd like to make a motion. |
| 03:21:19.31 | Vice Chair Junius | For Versailles. of the community. |
| 03:21:22.11 | Commissioner Feller | Yes, I'd like to make a motion. Thank you, Vice Chair. I'd like to make a motion to remove Site 302 from consideration And separately, I will make a motion to keep 301. |
| 03:21:36.27 | Chair Luxembourg | I'll second both of those motions. Okay, so I want to, we'd like to change that motion a little bit. We're, these were not in our, everything we've been doing is from our thing from last Wednesday. So these were not in there last Wednesday. So the motion, you're making a motion not to include, you're making a recommendation to the council not include 302, which is the water-based housing off of the little beach at Dunphy Park. You're recommending that we do not concur that that should be added to- Correct. |
| 03:22:14.27 | Unknown | That's correct. |
| 03:22:15.43 | Chair Luxembourg | Thank you. Okay, and so with that revision of the motion, does the person in a second agree with the revision of the motion? |
| 03:22:22.56 | Vice Chair Junius | Yes. |
| 03:22:22.93 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:22:22.94 | Vice Chair Junius | Thank you. |
| 03:22:22.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:22:23.33 | Chair Luxembourg | Yes, okay. Let's, any further discussion? |
| 03:22:27.40 | Unknown | No. |
| 03:22:27.72 | Chair Luxembourg | Thank you. Okay, let's have a roll call vote, Mr. City Clerk. Commissioner Feller. |
| 03:22:33.25 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 03:22:34.28 | Chair Luxembourg | Commissioner |
| 03:22:34.98 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 03:22:34.99 | Chair Luxembourg | Thank you. |
| 03:22:35.18 | Walfred Solorzano | I'm going to go ahead and |
| 03:22:37.34 | Unknown | They're recused. |
| 03:22:38.79 | Walfred Solorzano | Yeah. Commissioner Saab. |
| 03:22:40.70 | Unknown | I'm recused. |
| 03:22:41.52 | Walfred Solorzano | Who cares? |
| 03:22:42.15 | Chair Luxembourg | Thank you. |
| 03:22:42.16 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Vice Chair Junius. Yes. and share Luxembourg. |
| 03:22:47.95 | Chair Luxembourg | Yes. Okay, now the second motion was a motion, I'm going to reverse what you had is to add 301, is it 301 Beth? 301 to the, to our recommendation that we concur of adding 301 to our previous recommendation. |
| 03:23:08.67 | Commissioner Feller | Yes, that is the motion. |
| 03:23:10.48 | Chair Luxembourg | OK, thank you. in there. |
| 03:23:12.02 | Vice Chair Junius | And I seconded that motion. |
| 03:23:13.21 | Chair Luxembourg | And Vice Chair Junior seconded that motion. Is there any further discussion on that motion? |
| 03:23:19.54 | Unknown | No. |
| 03:23:20.50 | Chair Luxembourg | Okay, and if city clerk, if you could take the role on that motion. |
| 03:23:25.45 | Walfred Solorzano | Commissioner Feller. Yes. Commissioner Graff recused Commissioner Saad recused. Vice Chair Junius |
| 03:23:35.34 | Vice Chair Junius | Yes. |
| 03:23:36.47 | Walfred Solorzano | and share Luxembourg. |
| 03:23:38.04 | Chair Luxembourg | Thank you. |
| 03:23:38.56 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 03:23:38.59 | Chair Luxembourg | Yes. So at this point, I'd like to bring back Commissioner Saad and Commissioner Graff. AND I'M GOING TO ASK BETH AND DIRECTOR FIFTS, WE'VE DEALT WITH THE PROGRAMS, WE'VE MADE OUR RECOMMENDATIONS AND WE'VE ADDED TO THAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL WORKING GROUP. WE'VE MADE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS ON SITES, INCLUDING CLEARLY TAKING OUTATED TO THE ONE NEAR THE WATER AND ADJACENT TO THE WATER. WITH THAT, WE BELIEVE WE'VE COVERED ALL OF THE SITES. WE BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE BUFFERS. And now I'm going to be looking for a motion that packages all that information together, which is the entire program changes along with the... FOR A MOTION THAT PACKAGES ALL THAT INFORMATION TOGETHER, WHICH IS THE ENTIRE PROGRAM CHANGES, ALONG WITH THE SPECIFIC SITE DELINEATIONS AS WE CLEARLY DELINEATED, ALONG WITH THE WHEREASES AND ALL THAT IS IDENTIFIED IN THE AGENDA PACKET, WHERE WE WEAR AS FOR A COUPLE PAGES THERE, AND THEREFORE RESOLVE THAT THE FOREGOING RECITALS ARE TRUE, THAT THE HOUSING ELEMENT SUBSTANTIALLY COMPOSED WITH THE STATE HOUSING ELEMENT, BUT BASED ON THAT, WE INCLUDE A STATEWIDE, INCLUDING A STATEWIDE, THE EVIDENCE OF THE STATEWIDE HOUSING PRICES, ET CETERA, AND WE MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION OF CITY COUNCIL WITH ALL THE ITEMS WE JUST SAID AS A PACKAGE. AND FINALLY, WE RECOMMEND THAT THE ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR BE AUTHORIZED TO MAKE MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT TO ADDRESS COMMENTS PROVIDED BY THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ON THIS HOUSING ELEMENT AND WE'RE GOING TO ATTACH THE REVISED HOUSING ELEMENT THAT MS. THOMPSON AND DE NOVO GROUP IS GOING TO GET ALL THOSE CHANGES IN AS WE SO CLEARLY DELINEATED SO THAT IS THE MOTION I'M GOING TO MAKE THE MOTION AND IN YOUR PACKET IS ALL THE STUFF I QUICKLY SUMMARIZED BUT ALL THE VERBIGE IS THERE AND I'LL BE LOOKING FOR A SECOND ON THAT. So- |
| 03:25:57.53 | Sergio Rudin | So I think your motion is just to adopt the resolution. And in our resolution, we have a placeholder that allows the commission to make the changes. So perhaps maybe our. esteemed director can summarize all of the votes that just occurred so that we can make sure that we're including those in the resolution you adopt tonight. |
| 03:26:19.06 | Chair Luxembourg | Yes, I agree 100% that's all we're doing is that resolution plus that little yellow area in number four. |
| 03:26:27.75 | Jill Hoffman | Can I just ask does the planning director need a moment to synthesize his notes before he reads them off into the record? |
| 03:26:37.50 | Brandon Phipps | I have notes. I may have to just go through them to make sure that I'm making correct statements. I would appreciate support of Ms. Thompson and city attorney in summarizing, but I can go through individual sites and we can specify from there if that is the pleasure of council and commission. |
| 03:26:37.67 | Jill Hoffman | I have not. |
| 03:26:38.35 | Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 03:26:57.38 | Jill Hoffman | Very good. That sounds good, Brennan. |
| 03:27:00.37 | Brandon Phipps | Very good. So regarding site 52, that's the city hall site. There was a motion to remove city hall site from the list with an additional motion or a follow on motion to allocate 10 additional units to the MLK site to reflect an increase of 10 units on what the city council had recommended in their version. That is motion number one. Sites 207 through 210, let's see. There was a motion. by Chair Luxenberg to remove 927 Bridgeway, which I believe is site 208. There was a follow on motion to keep All sites, oh, and that did not pass. There was a follow-on motion to keep all sites, 207, 208, 210 on the opportunity site list. That motion passed. So 207 through 210 included, but not 209. There was a motion to approve the city council recommendation on MLK plus 10 units. We already discussed that one. Sites 303, 305, and 306. There was a motion on the floor seconded by Vice Chair Junius. Motion passed. So 303, 305, 306 for inclusion. Motion to approve all edits and amendments to the program. Program changes that the Planning Commission recommended plus programs made to programmatic changes made by the City Council Working Group in tonight's presentation. Resolution will include all that program language. That motion passed unanimously. Sites 301 and 302. Motion to remove site 302 from consideration. Thank you. That passed. Motion to include site 301. That passed. Final motion and actually the final motion is the totality of what we just summarized and I hope that was accurate. Any clarifications, please welcome to comment. |
| 03:29:17.02 | Chair Luxembourg | I understand from City Attorney Rudin that the resolution, as you have adopted, is what we really are putting on the floor with all of the items you just mentioned included in item number four. |
| 03:29:32.68 | Sergio Rudin | Yes, yes, that would be the motion. It would be a motion to adopt the resolution amending section four. to specify the following changes. The removal of site 52 with an increased allocation of 10 units to site 84, an inclusion of sites 207, 208, and 210 in the site's inventory, Um, a inclusion of Sites 304, 305, 306 in the Sites Inventory, a recommendation to improve all of the program revisions by the City Council Working Group, A recommendation to remove site 302 from the site inventory and a recommendation to include site 301. |
| 03:30:09.20 | Joan Cox | It's a correction, not include 304, but include 303, 305 and 306. |
| 03:30:16.25 | Commissioner Feller | Yeah, and I had a further comment That was a clarification that the tennis courts are not included in sub area one in site 84. Correct. you |
| 03:30:29.36 | Chair Luxembourg | And just when this all gets written up, City Attorney Gruden, the 301 and the 302 should come before the whole thing of both programs. We should have all the sites listed in, you know, All the sites should be listed together. making clear what the motion is. |
| 03:30:46.73 | Sergio Rudin | Yes. So I heard that 304 is not an included site. |
| 03:30:51.44 | Beth Thompson | Correct. It was 303, 305, and 306. |
| 03:30:55.42 | Unknown | Correct. |
| 03:30:56.38 | Beth Thompson | And then, Director Phipps, can I go back to your notes on sites 207 through 210? I had sites 207 through 210, but not 208. That's what I had. |
| 03:30:56.67 | Unknown | No. |
| 03:30:56.84 | Sergio Rudin | Thank you. |
| 03:31:05.44 | John | That's what I had also. |
| 03:31:12.21 | Brandon Phipps | Okay. I think you're correct, Ms. Thompson. Thank you. |
| 03:31:16.70 | Chair Luxembourg | Bye. Thank you for that correction, Ms. Thompson. Oh, and... |
| 03:31:20.18 | Commissioner Feller | Is there a motion on the floor or do you need a motion? |
| 03:31:22.83 | Chair Luxembourg | I put the motion on the floor, I need a second. |
| 03:31:25.25 | Commissioner Feller | I'll second. |
| 03:31:28.28 | Chair Luxembourg | Thank you. Further discussion, somebody from the council was there question? |
| 03:31:35.77 | Commissioner Saad | No, sorry, I was going to second. |
| 03:31:38.01 | Chair Luxembourg | Oh, okay. I thank you, Commissioner Stodd. We've already got a second, so we'll go with that. So with that, I will take a vote roll. Any further questions, comments from the commission members? You know, with that, I will ask the city clerk to take a roll call vote on our recommendation to the city council. |
| 03:32:02.45 | Walfred Solorzano | Commissioner Feller. |
| 03:32:03.56 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 03:32:04.46 | Walfred Solorzano | Commissioner Graff. Yes. Commissioner Saad. |
| 03:32:07.66 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 03:32:08.74 | Walfred Solorzano | Vice Chair Junius. Thank you. |
| 03:32:10.70 | Chair Luxembourg | Yeah. |
| 03:32:10.87 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 03:32:10.97 | Chair Luxembourg | Thank you. |
| 03:32:10.99 | Walfred Solorzano | Yes. |
| 03:32:11.04 | Chair Luxembourg | Thanks. |
| 03:32:11.83 | Walfred Solorzano | and share Luxembourg. |
| 03:32:13.67 | Chair Luxembourg | Yes, without, I'm gonna turn it back over to Mayor Blasen, but I'm gonna request that we have like a 15 minute recess or some, I don't know what you prefer, but some recess of some sort. So what would you like? |
| 03:32:29.04 | Mayor Blaustein | Thank you very much, Chair Luxenberg. And thank you to all the members of the Planning Commission for the amount of time and effort and commitment you put into moving this forward and really putting attention to detail and so much extra time, extra hours, especially Commissioner Feller and Commissioner Saad, who served on both the HEAC and communicated with the council working group this weekend. So I just really appreciate it. Thank you very much. At this time, we are going to take a 15 minute recess. When we return, we will open the city council public hearing on the adoption of the housing element. And the first order of business will be to take public comment again. So for those members of the public who are hoping to weigh in, And I wanted to make sure you were aware of that fact. So it is now. of the housing element and the first order of business will be to take public comment again. So for those members of the public who are hoping to weigh in, I wanted to make sure you were aware of that fact. So it is now 710. We will return at 725. |
| 03:33:12.44 | Unknown | Recording stopped. |
| 03:33:23.72 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:33:37.49 | Unknown | Recording in progress. |
| 03:33:45.23 | Jill Hoffman | Mayor, it looks like Vice Mayor and I are back. You guys are back. |
| 03:33:53.00 | Mayor Blaustein | Okay, it is now 7.26 PM. Thank you for indulging us with that 15 minute recess. And we will now. reopen the special meeting of the city council and the planning commission Our first order of business as we open the public hearing for the City Council to adopt that draft housing element is to hear public comment so. City Clerk, will you please remind members of the public how they can submit public comment? |
| 03:34:20.69 | Walfred Solorzano | So for those in attendance, you've already submitted speaker forms. If you just came in and you wanted to speak, we have a speaker form over at the table by the TV. And I'll take that. For those that are on Zoom, you can press, use the raise hand function. Or you can, if you're on a phone on Zoom, press star 9. So we'll start with the speakers in house. So we'll start with a, Jim Gerardo, sorry, Jim Gerardo. Jim? Thank you. All right, and let's go with John Donovan. |
| 03:34:58.22 | Mayor Blaustein | Bye. |
| 03:34:58.28 | Unknown | you |
| 03:35:01.59 | Mayor Blaustein | Just a reminder to members of the public that we are limiting public comment to 90 seconds. |
| 03:35:07.30 | John Donovan | Ms. Mayor, Council. So to finish up where I was with my previous and to the Planning Commission, With regards to this, you know, there's a lot of stuff happening right in my neck of the woods and some of it I'm not soaked on though I do realize that it all has to occur. I do want to thank all you guys I forgot for all you for your hard work you guys for your hard work all this stuff is important. And you guys are doing a good job of it. I wanted to add to this that I do have where I live I have a half an acre almost a half an acre of property just it's the last house on Lima street and I would be willing to put that in the. Um, what are you calling it now the In the inventory, yeah, because if we wind up developing the MLK and it's not, an acceptable place for me to still be. my property would be in addition to solve this problem for the city. Thank you. |
| 03:36:00.72 | Mayor Blaustein | Thanks, John. |
| 03:36:03.91 | Unknown | Chris Reynolds. |
| 03:36:11.56 | Unknown | Good evening all, I'm Chris Reynolds. My wife and I live at 40 Marion Avenue. which is a duplex property that we've owned since 1987. Uh, first order of business tonight, I'd like to urge the city council to, please adopt a housing element plan tonight. either as the working group recommended or with adjustments as have been discussed by the planning committee. Commission this evening. It's a thankless process that everybody's gone through. And the only guaranteed outcome of that process is that some of the people are gonna be upset. But I think it's an even-handed result for the process that's been gone through a great effort by a lot of people. Second, I would like to strongly endorse the removal of Site 100, which is 66 Marion, one of my neighbors, from the list. |
| 03:37:02.62 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:37:18.40 | Unknown | FOR ALL OF THE REASONS THAT HAVE BEEN, WE'VE BEEN HARPING ON FOR THE LAST NUMBER OF MONTHS, 20 property owners on Marion Avenue proper and South Street. I'd like to comment objectively on a couple of things that my neighbor, Kim, has said in her letter today and this evening, earlier this evening. The lot does not contain a third of an acre of buildable. Oops. Okay, I guess I'm out of time. Thank you anyway. |
| 03:37:48.79 | Unknown | and |
| 03:37:51.39 | Unknown | Pamela McNichol. |
| 03:37:52.33 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:37:56.79 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:37:56.81 | Pamela McNichol | City Board of Education and Council. Just very briefly, I wanted to, I guess, first acknowledge how hard you all have worked. I followed the process very closely. And the amount of work that's been done in the last 14 or 15 days is remarkable. So thank you, particularly to the two council members and to the working City Council group. Um, I, I agree with the recommendation of the planning commission to remove site 100. It's got environmental issues from one spectrum to the other. It's got a creek running through it. Gigi Unary Creek, it's a new Denon Street, there's a water deficiency up on the hill, it's just the wrong place to be trying to intensively rezone. The good news is, is it can be rezone, or it can be developed under current rezone, so it's kind of a win-win for everybody, the owner gets to rezone. gets to redevelop. the city will get some more housing. and the community won't be unnecessarily burdened or are public safety compromised. So thank you for listening. It's very much appreciated. Thank you. HARD TO BE ABLE TO TAKE A |
| 03:39:05.94 | Unknown | but, |
| 03:39:06.20 | Walfred Solorzano | I'm sorry. |
| 03:39:06.36 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 03:39:14.04 | Carlito Berg | whenever you're ready. Awesome. Hi, everybody. Carlo Berg. Most of you know me. You know, we represented sites 67 and 68, extremely likely to be taken off. Thank you. the housing element tonight. And, you know, looking back, I think there's probably a lot of things that I would have done differently that I need to take some responsibility for. Um, But fundamentally, I wanted to come here tonight to state for the record that I think, Um, IT'S POSSIBLE TO HAVE A projects on sites. that are good projects that do more than the inclusionary amount of affordability. and have senior uses on them that work well. with working waterfronts next to them. Um, And fundamentally, that was something that I would have proposed, something that was affordable. something that was beautiful. And that's something that would have worked well with all the neighbors. And of course, it's at your discretion to remove whatever you want. Um, But I just wanted to state that for the record. Thank you very much. Thank you. |
| 03:40:25.39 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:40:25.41 | Carlito Berg | Jim. |
| 03:40:26.03 | Unknown | There are no. |
| 03:40:34.00 | Pamela McNichol | All right, that's my first curtain call. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:40:36.59 | Unknown | Bye. And I think that's a good thing. |
| 03:40:36.90 | Jim Gerardo | Yeah. |
| 03:40:37.32 | Pamela McNichol | Welcome back. |
| 03:40:37.57 | Jim Gerardo | Bye. |
| 03:40:37.90 | Unknown | I'm out. |
| 03:40:37.96 | Jim Gerardo | Thank you. |
| 03:40:38.00 | Unknown | Bye. you |
| 03:40:38.96 | Jim Gerardo | Okay, I'll be quick selling out my time. It's already started. Okay, so I own site 208927 Bridgeway. I didn't mean any confusion that I owned all those sites. which is very nice, but I don't know. So these sites, 207, 208, 209, and 2010, they're added to the housing plan on January 25th. Only one site was ever mentioned before in any public document And it was only reserved. So all of these are newly added sites. They weren't reviewed or anything like that. And none of these are low buffer stocks. So I kind of urge the council to remove all these for late parcels from the housing plan. They should all be removed, not just one, They were all added last week without any public comment or review, and I think they need more time for study and comment And as Thompson indicated that they could be added during the review process with HCD, So I know that the council has the authority to modify the proposal from the Planning Commission So I'm urging you to do that and remove these four sites. |
| 03:41:46.44 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Lauren Derrameer. |
| 03:41:57.85 | Lauren Derrameer | Hello, thank you. I submitted comments over the weekend by email, so I just wanted to speak on top of that at kind of a high level. One thing that I'm confused about that I'd love to learn more about that I don't have enough details about this meeting is what happens if anything changes? Like what are our protect, what protections do we have? you know, if this mandate gets done unconstitutional, which is maybe a silly question, but I'm just wondering once we get to that point, what happens on our end if we make this proposition. I definitely think that we obviously have a housing crisis and I fully support it where it makes sense. communicated in a number of ways why this does not make sense in the waterfront. We have Maritime Trains Center. Is that my turn? Yeah. I'm sorry. that are very unique to the entire West Coast. It reaches beyond Saucelito in ways that they don't have anywhere else. There's like a handful of them in the whole. West Coast. So in my opinion, something that's gone on for 30 years of putting these into place is really important. I also don't think that sausage is going to fix the housing crisis. So I think that we also have to have programs. And so just thinking about infrastructure, it's just the beginning of the conversation. Um, And lastly, I just think that everybody's kind of on the same page about this being a bit of a land grab and we have to do what we can. I just think we need to be very careful about where those places are and think about them as a community. because once we start doing this, we lose these areas. And so whether it's open space or maritime, it just needs to be really considered. Thank you. Thank you, Warren. |
| 03:43:36.33 | Walfred Solorzano | Any more speakers in-house? |
| 03:43:43.57 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 03:43:43.59 | Adriana Bentley | Welcome back, Craig. |
| 03:43:44.80 | Craig Merrily | Thank you, Craig Maloney, Working Waterfront Coalition. I submitted my request at the beginning of the meeting. for the council section. Um, It's a pleasure to be here tonight. I want to thank everybody for all the incredible work. I know you've got more to do, but it feels like we're in the home stretch. I wanted to say that tonight I'm coming to bring you good tidings. And that includes Greetings from a thousand people who feel so strongly about the Marine ship, making sure that it thrives, not just survives, but thrives in the future. And that means finding better locations for housing, You know, when we started this process, we felt like there was scarcity and scarcity I think was forcing us to make difficult and in my view, some bad decisions. That's changed. through the grace of whatever, we now find ourselves with an abundance of sites and able to make better and different choices. And I salute the council and the planning commission for taking a fresh look and thinking about how we can have it all. We can have the sauce leader we love that we want to continue to have that we can be proud of. makers and industrial and working waterfront all survive along with the housing that we need. and are working hard to present to, delivered for our folks. So thank you so much. I'll bring this to you now. |
| 03:45:17.56 | Mayor Blaustein | Great. Thank you, Craig. |
| 03:45:22.29 | Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 03:45:24.80 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:45:24.84 | Craig Merrily | Thank you. |
| 03:45:24.85 | Mayor Blaustein | you you City clerk, do we have any further in-person public comment at this time? |
| 03:45:30.76 | Walfred Solorzano | No more in-person comments. We'll go to Zoom. Keith Diggs. |
| 03:45:38.25 | Walfred Solorzano | Welcome, Keith. |
| 03:45:38.83 | Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 03:45:41.19 | Keith Diggs | I want to address you in person because I regret that we're probably going to find ourselves on the opposite sides of a lawsuit soon. Last week, I appeared at the Planning Commission and asked them to get this right and take their time. It seems that it's not happening. The letter that HCD sent Sausalito is the equivalent of a D. Sausalito met many, many statutory requirements, but some other cities meet most of them. And you have a long appendix about problems in the housing element. And it was apparent tonight. that the council and the commission were not sure about a lot of the sites they were voting on. So this is not, in my opinion, a well-considered document. You could have planned for this years ago, as the city of Alameda did and chose not to. Being late is a bad idea to rush. There are plenty of comparable cities that are not rushing. Mill Valley is not rushing. Corte Madera is not rushing. Petaluma is not rushing. Saratoga is not rushing. San Jose, Sunnyvale, Mountain View are not rushing. Redwood City, which has had its draft certified, is not rushing to adopt. So you would be in plenty of good company if you were not rushing to adopt. Your site inventory has serious problems. No developer I've talked to thinks a lot of these sites will pencil and I know you've received a lot of comments to that effect. I suspect a lot of you would grumble in private that the task you've been given is impossible. Here's what I will say about that. I would go to bat for you if you would just legalize density. Density is not ugly. Amalfi, Santorisi, Santorini, Ibiza, Santropay. If you look at them, they're full of dense multifamily housing, much denser than you see in Salsu. |
| 03:47:10.04 | Unknown | Thank you very much. |
| 03:47:14.29 | Unknown | Next speaker, Vicki Nichols. |
| 03:47:17.61 | Vicki Nichols | Bye, Vicki. Hi, good evening, Council. You have your work cut out for you, but I've got to say it's exciting that we've gotten to this point. And contrary to the last speaker, I will say that you are not the only jurisdiction struggling today and tonight to get this done. uh, good here's your good work. I think that getting this passed tonight will assure that we are not in that I'll say penalty of having to rezone in a year. We must get this passed so that you have that three year option. If you have to rezone everything in a year, you may be doing zoning that is going to put us in two cycles and create more by right sites. Please, people have done a lot of work. I think you have a lot of good material to work for here. I would just like to talk about one site quickly. It's either 301 or 302 from listening into planning. I believe the site is identified as city owned, which I would suggest is the one that's the Tourney Street Pier or ramp. Just a reminder that that is the only public access place to the water in Sausalito. So thank you very much. And I'll continue to listen in. Wish you all good luck and I hope we have a past element at the end of the evening. Thank you. |
| 03:48:33.03 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 03:48:33.06 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 03:48:37.68 | Walfred Solorzano | this year ago. |
| 03:48:47.54 | Denise Gerardo | Hi, my name is Denise Gerardo, and I am the owner of Site 208. which has been included at the last minute with no notice or due diligence. Just because my neighbor writes a letter saying he wants to offer up his property, at the last minute doesn't make it right. Um, Neither I or my neighbors had any notice of my property or the neighboring properties of being included. I only found out about it because I was taking a break from teaching on Friday. And I happened to read the Sausalito Current, otherwise I had no No knowledge of it. These slides did not follow the rigorous review and public comment process that the other sites did. They do not help the very low and low buffers. It just seems very unjust to me that my property is included without due process or notice and I asked that it in the adjoining lots be removed. |
| 03:49:55.63 | Denise Gerardo | If you visited the site, it's just, I don't know. I would like, I couldn't find that any study had been done to show how all these sites would be included. And it's my home. And I had no notice of this before Friday and I still wouldn't know. So, I'm just a little concerned about that. |
| 03:50:19.42 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. Next speaker, John. |
| 03:50:28.84 | Mayor Blaustein | Bye, John. |
| 03:50:29.36 | John | Thank you. Hi, thank you. So I wanted to add to Craig Merrily's comment about the parcels in the Marin ship that were perhaps the most controversial. He presented a thousand signatures. There's another 278 signatures that came in online and that's been included in public comment. I wanted to thank the Planning Commission. uh, city council and staff for taking on this task. Um, And I wanted to make sure that everyone knows that the Working Water Fund Coalition is really agreeable to 10 to 12 acres north of Harbor Drive in the Marin ship, for housing or mixed use or whatever. um, And I also wanted to congratulate the process where we came from 104. buffer, 269-unit buffer. Um, Someone made a comment about the city of Alameda. was able to to comply with this process by starting a while ago. Yeah, they sure did. They scraped about a mile of their waterfront, their working waterfront, and there's essentially nothing left in Alameda of what used to be the working waterfront, and it's all housing now. So thankfully that's not going to happen. here. And then the last thing I wanted to say is regarding, um, I live across the country. |
| 03:52:09.97 | Mayor Blaustein | next week. Thanks, John. Thank you. Sandra Bushmaker. |
| 03:52:14.61 | John | Senator Bush. |
| 03:52:21.51 | Mayor Blaustein | Bye, Sandra. |
| 03:52:22.63 | Sandra Bushmaker | Good evening, council. I want to thank the planning commission the city council, both working groups in both organizations and the public who participated in all of the HEAC meetings, planning commission meetings and city council meetings, all of which were properly noticed and At the beginning of this process, I noticed that with the numbers that we were given by HCD, that it was going to pit neighbor against neighbor. In fact, I think I even said that. So I am hoping with the adoption of a Housing element tonight. we will realize we have saved what we can of our local control. And that will in itself give process to citizens of Sausalito to discuss various projects as they come before the council for approval. or the Planning Commission for approval. So we do have a process that we want to maintain and we have that ability But if we don't adopt tonight, we lose that ability. So it's really important for us to keep that. And I'm hoping that after all of this is over, said and done, that we once again can reunite as a community and be the beloved Sausalito that we all care about. You know, it's been a very rigorous experience. I know I've sat, as I said, I've sat through all of the housing element meetings and certainly all of the city council meetings for the last five years. So thank you very much for all your work and please vote to approve to adopt a housing element for submission to HCD. Thank you very much, Sandra. |
| 03:54:00.89 | Walfred Solorzano | Jenny Silver. |
| 03:54:06.90 | Jenny Silva | Hi, thanks. Council. I, I just want to state that premature adoption of the housing element does not protect Sausalito from the Builder's Remedy. Sausalito needs to pass a substantially compliant housing element. There is no way that Sausalito is able to address the very substantial comments provided by the state, including requirements of over aggressiveness and ADUs, the the needing to have a backup if the election doesn't pass, there's no way that Sausalito was able to address all of those in a weekend cram with two city council members. We won't win anything by passing this tonight. It's just gonna guarantee a lawsuit and it's just gonna cost us more time and more money and distract from the very important tasks of getting this done, we desperately need housing This process tonight of discussing the sites had nothing to do with housing. There was discussion of including sites where owners said they couldn't build it. People didn't know what they were actually voting on. We were pulling up Marin Maps and Google Maps in the middle of the discussion to say what it was we were voting on. This is not a good element and we should not pass it. We should do it right. Thank you. Thank you, Jenny. |
| 03:55:29.27 | Adriana Bentley | Bye. |
| 03:55:29.32 | Jenny Silva | you |
| 03:55:33.52 | Walfred Solorzano | Peter McGuire. |
| 03:55:34.26 | Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. Hi, Peter. |
| 03:55:40.01 | Peter McGuire | that being on mute. uh, I'm obviously I'm endorsing the planning commission, at one of the Planning Commission's resolution And I'm also want to congratulate the working group of the city council. that has done an extraordinary job of melding all this together in such a quick amount of time. Thank you very much. You've done a great job. I've been involved in this because I proposed 100 Marion because it's a It's a public safety risk. And I don't want that to fall through the cracks. The other comment I would make is, Don't let the noise bother you. you're actually increasing. the number of available sites. And that's a tremendous thing for you guys to do. So, Forget the noise. You're going to be fine. I don't expect you're going to have a problem with the HCD. And again, thank you very much for a job. Extremely well done. |
| 03:56:49.10 | Unknown | Thank you, Peter. |
| 03:56:49.81 | Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. Pat Zuck. Hi, Pat. Welcome back. |
| 03:56:56.31 | Pat Zook | Thank you. Okay. Congratulations maybe. I hope it's congratulations. I have one question and in reviewing the sites, the dumpy the Dumpy Park proposed Marina, I guess Houseboat community In looking at a map of Dunphy Park, I'm wondering if you've thought about where the entry and exit to the Oh, and how the docs are going to be Parking might be accommodated It looks to me from a map that this could be really problematic to the park. AND I WOULD BE CURIOUS TO HEAR YOU DISCUSS THAT. a little bit. Secondly, what comes across to me from some of the fairly upset people who have spoken about their properties included there should be some real effort to reassure them that being included does not obligate them to do anything. and does not disadvantage their property in any way if those two It's all true. And I think they are, and I think these folks should be reassured Um, And that is all I have to say. Thank you. Good work. |
| 03:58:18.37 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:58:20.06 | Mayor Blaustein | Alice Merrill. Welcome back, Alice. |
| 03:58:26.45 | Alice Merrill | Hi. I just want to say thank you. This is this has been grueling hard. complicated so complicated oh my goodness and um you guys have stuck with it and worked through it and done it and You know, you've listened about the Marinship, which as John said, There isn't any. that movement anymore and all over the country. If we can hang on to that. And welcome more people into our town, which is the same amount of people, I will say, living here as we're living here 70 years ago. So this new crowd is going to be be at New Sprouts anyway. Thank you so much for all you've done. I really appreciate it. Thank you. |
| 03:59:17.09 | Mayor Blaustein | Thanks, Allison. |
| 03:59:17.74 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 03:59:23.31 | Walfred Solorzano | Sorry, Lee, Lee, Sholino. |
| 03:59:26.29 | Lisa Chilino | Hi, this is Lisa Chilino again, and I wanted to thank you, all of you for your service to our community. Um, You have a difficult task before you, and you've proceeded admirably, so thank you. I wanted to reiterate that the new unit should be spread across the city as the MLK site. I hope that you'll adopt the city council working group recommendation and cap the number of units at MLK to 75. or roughly 10% of the total. I realized that housing at MLK makes sense. And I think it's a great idea. I just believe that the burden should be borne across the entire city. And so I hope you will take that into account. Thank you. Thank you very much. |
| 04:00:18.01 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 04:00:18.07 | Mayor Blaustein | Do you have any? |
| 04:00:18.10 | Walfred Solorzano | Go for the comments. |
| 04:00:19.42 | Mayor Blaustein | Okay, and do we have any further public comment from within council chambers before I close public comment? Okay, I'm going to go ahead and close proper comment at this time and bring it back up to the Council for discussion just so that we have an understanding of how the discussion will go. I think we'll first have a conversation about the revisions to the programs for the HCD comments and just a general overall conversation. And then we'll go to specific sites and I'll go into the sites based on each region as written and according to the City Council Working Group, which is Appendix Attachment 7 for those that are following along. So with that, is there a council member who would like to start us off with comments on |
| 04:01:11.73 | Joan Cox | Okay, Councilmember Cox. Thank you. I just do want to address a couple of the negative public comments about the housing element, that is proposed to be adopted tonight. So I was a member of the City Council working group that worked. commencing Thursday afternoon, all day, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and today. to put together the revisions to the housing element and I want to point out that DeNovo actually had already commenced making revisions based on feedback from. HCD that was received verbally a couple of weeks ago. So not everything was done just over this long weekend, but was actually thoughtfully commenced a couple of weeks ago when we first received comments from HCD. If you look at attachment three, you will see every HCD comment on the left-hand side. And you will see exactly how it was addressed on the right-hand side. And I am very proud about the way in which The programs and the revised draft housing element addresses each and every comment from HCD in a thoughtful and thorough manner. Why were we able to do this? This is not the first housing element in California. We have seen similar comments before. there is precedent for our ability to respond in a thoughtful manner. If you look at the housing element background and, um, adoption documents, you'll see significant red lines throughout those documents by which we thoughtfully incorporated HCD's comments. I was very pleased to hear our consultant, Beth, from DeNovo. Um, project that we have an 85% likelihood of having our housing element being found compliant by HCD based on its current status plus some perhaps minor back and forth between the city and HCD during the 60 day comment period. This is someone who has assisted Various municipalities in Marin with their housing elements and other municipalities throughout California. So I, for one, take her projection to heart. and am encouraged. about the efficacy of our work efforts. Our housing element depends on the rezoning of two main areas in Sausalito, the MLK and portions of the Marinship. In order to rezone those areas, we need a voter initiative. It will be nearly impossible for us to accomplish that voter initiative within one year and the resultant zoning. But we would be required to do that in one year. If we did not adopt a housing element this evening, we would also lose CWB DG and various other state funding for the period of time that we are. with housing element law. And so I, for one, I am a huge proponent of our adopting this housing element draft that is before you this evening. that our consultant says has an 85% likelihood of being found compliant. in order to avoid the consequences that we know would result if we don't adopt. Um, as one of the people who put in a lot of effort, attended every HEAC meeting over the last two years, even though I wasn't a member of HEAC, attended every city council meeting concerning this, I, I am hopeful that we will see this through to fruition tonight and adopt the housing element that is before us. Thank you. |
| 04:04:58.98 | Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 04:04:59.42 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 04:04:59.44 | Mayor Blaustein | Thank you council member Cox. And just to clarify, you are in favor of the program. |
| 04:05:03.10 | Michael Van Walt | What can I do for you? |
| 04:05:06.53 | Mayor Blaustein | Just to clarify, you are in favor of the |
| 04:05:08.97 | Joan Cox | programs as written. I am in favor of the programs as written and, and the revisions. |
| 04:05:09.72 | Mayor Blaustein | Yes. |
| 04:05:15.89 | Joan Cox | I imagine we will address the sites inventory separately. We certainly will. |
| 04:05:20.57 | Mayor Blaustein | I just wanted to clarify that for the record. |
| 04:05:21.97 | Joan Cox | I don't know. |
| 04:05:22.03 | Mayor Blaustein | Okay, now I'll go to council member Kelman who has her hand raised. |
| 04:05:24.77 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilmember Cox, for those comments. As the other member of the working group, I too am in favor of what we have discussed here tonight with the background and the element and the matrix. Like you, I want to point out that this was a thoughtful, really a multi-year process. You and I, Commissioner Feller, we all served on the Planning Commission for a very long time. We were all involved with the general plan update for a very long time. We were all on HEAC or attended all the HEAC meetings for a very long time. This was a 10 year overnight success, I guess. Right? It didn't happen over a weekend. It's been a very thorough work in progress. And those years and layers of experience enabled us to be very thoughtful in how we were able to address this over the weekend and throughout this entire process. I also just have to commend the Planning Commission and their really diligent effort. I know one of the speakers commented that it can be a little clumsy when we're looking at maps. And we did the exact same thing at HIAC. It's hard when you have a site name versus an address and you're trying to familiarize yourself and cross reference that. So things like that, I think, are just part of the process. And I don't think there are things that derail. I also just want to comment that I'm very proud that I think with the planning commission just recommended has something like 132 more units. And so we actually have on our threshold right here an opportunity to identify even more sites than the process had. And so I think that's a really great thing for this community to embrace. And so for those reasons, I am in favor of the program and the matrix and the background element. Thank you. |
| 04:07:07.57 | Mayor Blaustein | Thank you council member Kalman. |
| 04:07:09.09 | Jill Hoffman | Who would like to connect? |
| 04:07:09.97 | Mayor Blaustein | Councilman Rothman. |
| 04:07:10.81 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:07:15.25 | Jill Hoffman | Sure, I'm in favor of the additions and edits to the programs that, that, you know, that we discussed. And just, you know, thank you to reiterating, thank you to everybody for this heavy lift and the hard work of the planning commission and the working groups on this. So thanks. |
| 04:07:35.26 | Adriana Bentley | Thank you. |
| 04:07:35.28 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 04:07:36.33 | Jill Hoffman | Vice Mayor. |
| 04:07:36.88 | Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 04:07:37.73 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah, unfortunately there was never a red line that I got the chance to see, so I can't, earnestly and sincerely say that I've reviewed all the changes to the programs and policies, but I do have the highest regard. for my colleagues, council members, Kelman and Cox, and fully trust that their thorough investigation and modifications to those programs are responsive to all their the comments from HCD and the most important thing is that we move this forward and get the housing element that's defensible and meets the necessary criteria passed this evening. So I support them. |
| 04:08:12.81 | Mayor Blaustein | Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I would agree. I'm in support of the programs and the appendices as written. I just also want to give a big thank you to everyone who spent their weekend, but also all of the members of the community who have engaged over the last several years in this process. hundreds actually now. Thank you, Craig Merrillist, thousands of signatures and letters in public comment. And it's just a testament to how fortunate we are to have such an engaged and involved community here in Sausalito. This has been a very challenging process where no one is going to get 100% of what they want, but I think it's really a testament to the strength of our community that we're at this point this evening. So with that, I think we'll move on to specific sites for consideration. I'm going to be working, as I mentioned, from Appendices 7, just so that everyone who would like to follow along, and just so that we are absolutely sure from a legal standpoint that we know where there are conflicts or not, we're just going to go region by region. And according to the spreadsheet, is the So are there sites within this inventory that folks would like to discuss or consider. Okay, Councilmember Kelman. |
| 04:09:20.33 | Jill Hoffman | I know sorry mayor I have my hand up before that I was going to ask a question to the city attorney which was at any time is it an option for us to make a motion to. past what the Planning Commission has just recommended. or do we have to go through each and every one of the regions? |
| 04:09:42.33 | Sergio Rudin | Um... I think you could likely make a single motion to pass to approve the Planning Commission's recommendation. Uh, and you could, you likely would need to, consider conflicts because of the general plan exception. But to the extent that there is any sort of desire to discuss specific sites, and I don't know if there might be by the rest of the council members, then I would recommend segmenting that discussion. Um, I'll leave it to the mayor and to you to ponder that further. |
| 04:10:27.67 | Jill Hoffman | I don't want to cut anybody off. I just want to know what our options would be. I'd be willing to make such a motion, but I also want to hear from my. fellow council members. Thank you. |
| 04:10:36.75 | Mayor Blaustein | Vice Mayor Sobieski had his head. |
| 04:10:37.93 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:10:37.95 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah, I still have two questions before we get to the sites that are pertinent for Beth and for the working group. For Beth, the question is, um, You know, I asked you before what the probability was that HCD would accept our housing element and certified it. And you said it's 85% as written and it would improve. And this is a key to 95% just with basic revision that you expect to be able to do a tweak here and a tweak there. I had... First, the question of what would it take to make that second number 99% instead of 95%. uh, Would it be more sites? Is it a change in any of the programs? Is there nothing that would change that? Is 95 as good as it gets with HCD? |
| 04:11:21.02 | Beth Thompson | That's 95 is probably optimistically as good as it gets because there are always comments from HCD and we never know exactly what to expect in jurisdictions experience just a range of different levels of feedback. |
| 04:11:34.87 | Ian Sobieski | on similar approaches. So, all right, so that's as good as it gets with 169, I think, sites as the buffer. Councilmember Kelman just mentioned that the how the the numbers that the planning commission just recommended that's 140 something that I get the number right. 142. It's less than 169. |
| 04:11:58.01 | Jill Hoffman | I think it was 132. |
| 04:11:58.02 | Ian Sobieski | They use a 132 for 169. So, just at the highest level, how does that affect our odds if we give up 37 units? |
| 04:12:09.60 | Beth Thompson | You're still... There's still... close to 20% buffer, but one of the things that is affected is you have a reduction in your very low units. And so you now have a negative amount. So we would have to really review and look at some of the allocation between the very low, low, and moderate. It wouldn't change the whole units on sites, but we would definitely be looking at that. So that is probably the largest effect of the Planning Commission recommendation. |
| 04:12:39.10 | Ian Sobieski | Okay. And then, uh, A related question is we talked a bit about what happens after the housing element is certified. And we talked about the penalties of our crew. If we don't actually build the units in four years, 320 ish units. What looking at this housing element, understanding the economics of the various sites, the assessing the level of interest and level of seriousness of the various owners. What is your experience? How can you What is your percentage chance that we're actually going to meet? the 320 ish units under construction are approved in four years based on this site map. |
| 04:13:21.33 | Beth Thompson | And so not construction, but having them permitted. So when HCD reviews your annual progress reports, they're going to look at what you've permitted in comparison to your allocation. And That's a big hurdle. The state hasn't dedicated adequate funding to subsidize very low and low income housing at the levels that it's demanding jurisdictions accommodate and provide. So there's really a shortfall in funding. So Jurisdictions can be successful in obtaining funding. You have to be super proactive, but it will be very difficult to get to that number. |
| 04:13:58.46 | Ian Sobieski | I noticed you didn't answer my question with the number and I don't blame you a little bit, but I mean, it's pertinent to things like the city hall site, right? I mean, the idea behind very low and low income housing. is that it doesn't, is that one way of funding it is from subsidies from someone else, the state. Another way is subsidizing ourselves, which is giving city property to the effort. The city parking lot is a free parking lot. The park is, I mean, nothing's free. It costs our balance sheet something. Thank you. substantial. But what I mean is that it's within the scope of possibility that the city is able to not pay, require someone to pay for the land. if we have to, if we're, if the alternative is to get horrible sanctions from the state for not meeting our, building requirements in those categories. So I got to ask you again, just Are we setting ourselves, are we kicking the can down the road by patting ourselves on the back that we've got a great housing element, but in fact... We're setting ourselves up because we don't have enough units in the low and We don't have enough units that are actually going to get built. In the next- |
| 04:15:02.18 | Beth Thompson | So. So you had asked about SB 35 earlier, and that's what I think you're referring to in the penalties for not having enough units. And the city is currently subject to SB 35 from your fifth cycle performance. So that wouldn't be anything new to the city. So that would be something that you're currently addressing. It's always good to have more of a buffer. So yes, the more sites you have, the more likelihood there is that you'll get units built. But I do want to caution you that sites that cities or provide through the Surplus Landers Act or otherwise make available. Providing a site isn't enough always to make housing feasible. There's usually other layers of funding that go into it. A lot of the low income housing tax credit projects receive multiple layers of funding, including some assistance from local jurisdictions frequently. there probably will need to be other governmental or non-governmental sources of funds dedicated to assisting and offsetting the cost of development. |
| 04:16:03.69 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, all right. And then I just had a question for the working group. You know, there were a few comments on sites that were added in the last seven days that that people found out about AT THE LAST MINUTE. AND I'M JUST WONDERING WHAT THE PHILOSOPHY THERE IS. OBVIOUSLY IT HELPS US WITH OUR supportive of them, but you heard comments from people that I'm concerned about all the people that haven't heard that their neighboring properties on the housing list after a two-year process where there was a lot of public engagement on a lot of sites that you can imagine being feeling a little, surprised if their next door neighbor's site shows up and they didn't know about it. And I was just curious how the working group thought through that consideration in adding sites to the list. |
| 04:16:47.75 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:16:47.77 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 04:16:47.78 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:16:48.04 | Joan Cox | address that. |
| 04:16:52.37 | Joan Cox | I'm happy to speak on behalf of the working group. So one group of sites was sites 207 to 210. that was subject of the Planning Commission. That was added by the Planning Commission. and they decided this evening to retain it. Those are all above moderate sites. So that would affect our buffer for above moderate, but that was not, that does not involve very low or low income sites and the total sites affected by the entirety is of 9-11 to 9-17. Bridgeway and 931 to 933 Bridgeway and not 927 Bridgeway the total. is 14 sites. So. that does not have a huge impact. In terms of other sites that were added, The sites that were added north of Harbor Drive are the result of two years worth of conversations with property owners north of Bridgeway, one of whom has already provided us renderings for development on their site. And so... Am I confident that that site will actually be redeveloped after rezoning? Absolutely. In terms of the developability of other sites, the corporation yard, the mayor has been in chat talks with Mike McGuire. who can bring 100% state funding to to build senior housing at the corporation yard at the level set forth on the matrix. I met with Rotary Housing this week about their making up the EIR and the shovel-ready nature of the site. that. so that the state would then pay for the development of the site so that's going to happen and it's going to happen quickly the funds actually have to be spent quickly and that can be true of other. City owned sites that are eligible for state funding. because of the low and very low income projections. for units to be built on those sites. There is money available. And we are actively So I'm actually more optimistic than our consultant, only because I've had boots on the ground for the last two years meeting with site owners to ensure that the sites we include on our inventory will actually get built and are not just pipe dreams. |
| 04:19:17.06 | Ian Sobieski | Thanks, thanks, Joan. And I just, I'll just say, just like Council Member Cox is willing to make a motion In total to pass the Planning Commission recommendations, I'd be willing to make a motion in total to pass the working group recommendations just removing the one 927 Bridgeway site that the owner has declared they're not interested in. in developing. |
| 04:19:42.52 | Mayor Blaustein | And remember, let me have your mic on. |
| 04:19:44.19 | Jill Hoffman | I, yes, I have one clarification and I would support that as well. That motion motion. I do have one question about a clarification for site 208. So 208 was the site of the owners that didn't know. Yeah, Gerardo, that didn't know that their site had been designated I just want to be clear that the planning commission recommended that that site be removed. Can you... either our attorney or Director Phipps or the consultant confirmed. Okay. Correct. So to be clear, we had public comment on that. And if we vote to... |
| 04:20:18.81 | Unknown | Correct. Okay. |
| 04:20:26.23 | Jill Hoffman | support the Planning Commission recommendation. That site is off. Sir. My answer is, |
| 04:20:31.97 | Joan Cox | only concern with adopting the Planning Commission recommendation is site 302 that they removed. Site 302 is a city owned street in the Bay at which we have projected 21 very low income units and seven low income units. It's the underwater streets that are right next to the Bridgeway Marina. And so we don't have challenges with access and egress. |
| 04:20:56.01 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:20:59.83 | Joan Cox | Um, those are city-owned sites. |
| 04:21:02.38 | Mayor Blaustein | So what I'm hearing is we need to have some conversation about specific sites and we can talk about what they are as we go through this. I don't want to go back and forth amongst us saying we could adopt the planning commission if because that's why we have this process and we need to get this process right. So if that's okay, I'd like to go through. Go ahead. I don't want to interrupt Councilmember Hoffman at a thought and I'll just let me finish and I'll have you weigh in. And Councilmember Kelman has her hand raised as well. But I would like to and we can have the opportunity to say at each junction, no, we don't need to discuss said sites, but I would like to go through the process appropriately and truly get it right when we move forward to make a motion. |
| 04:21:33.36 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, so do we need a motion on the programs? Yes. So then I make the motion that we accept the programs as, as put forward by the working group and planning commission. Can I have a second? Second. City Clerk, would you please call the roll? |
| 04:21:49.58 | Unknown | you |
| 04:21:50.60 | Walfred Solorzano | Yeah. concern on Cox. Yes. Councilmember Hoffman? |
| 04:21:54.60 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:21:54.62 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 04:21:55.33 | Walfred Solorzano | I have something coming. |
| 04:21:56.93 | Jill Hoffman | Yes. |
| 04:21:58.62 | Walfred Solorzano | Sorry, councilman, we're coming. |
| 04:22:00.06 | Jill Hoffman | you |
| 04:22:00.07 | Mayor Blaustein | Yes. |
| 04:22:01.78 | Walfred Solorzano | Vice Mayor Sobieski. Yes. and Mayor Baustein. |
| 04:22:04.85 | Mayor Blaustein | you |
| 04:22:04.90 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 04:22:04.97 | Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 04:22:05.25 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:22:06.55 | Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 04:22:06.59 | Jill Hoffman | Trans-overcoming, you had your hand raised. Yeah, thank you, Mayor. I very much respect the interest in perhaps going side by side, but also given the robust nature of the prior conversation. I WANT TO PUT ON THE RECORD THAT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUGGESTIONS WITH ONE CHANGE, WHICH IS ADDING SITE 302. Second. |
| 04:22:28.34 | Jill Hoffman | you |
| 04:22:30.25 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:22:30.26 | Jill Hoffman | I'd like to offer an amendment. for an alternate motion. in the alternative then the amendment would be to remove site 302. or at least have discussion on it. Okay. I agree. |
| 04:22:44.17 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:22:44.20 | Unknown | I'm not. |
| 04:22:45.15 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, sorry. That wasn't very clear. Thanks. |
| 04:22:49.13 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 04:22:49.95 | Jill Hoffman | I'd like to make an alternate motion that we adopt the plan recommended by the planning commission this evening. |
| 04:22:57.94 | Ian Sobieski | And I'll make a third motion inside that one, which really can tackle one another. The order of votes would just be in reverse order of the motions. And that's to accept the working group's recommendations in total, just removing site Uh, 927 Bridgeway. |
| 04:23:14.68 | Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 04:23:14.69 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 04:23:14.71 | Mayor Blaustein | I think it's clear that we need a discussion based on that each of these motions are different except for one. So let's have a discussion. Sergio, just to make sure, I'm not opposed to having discussion just with regards to those motions, but Sergio, I wanna be sure. that we are getting this right with regards to conflict of interest and the vote. So, Sir JL, City Attorney, could you please weigh in? |
| 04:23:35.79 | Sergio Rudin | Yes, so I have in in in each of these motions, there is basically a component here that would involve the Council participation in decisions to remove specific sites. I've heard specifically named site 302, I've also, you know, given sort of the distinction between the City Council working group proposal and the Planning Commission's recommendation as was just recently decided at the public hearing. I do agree with the mayor that the safest thing to do would be to go through and decide which sites you would like to discuss and then consider whether you have conflicts and if you have conflicts, make decisions on those first. I think Site 302 is an example. |
| 04:24:20.76 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. I appreciate that. Point of order, though. I have a pending motion with a second. The only point of controversy between an opposing motion is Site 302. Does it make sense to have a conversation around, say, 302 and see if my pending motion with a second? Can be better on. |
| 04:24:38.06 | Sergio Rudin | I think that that would be a, and acceptable way to address this issue. So, I mean, if you can, if the council can make a decision on site 302 and then there is nothing else, there's no other disagreement in terms of. Um, you know, or need for the council discussion discuss other remaining sites. You know, the planning commission's last recommendation. What is is currently, I would say, the position of the agency and would qualify for the FPPC's general plan amendment exception. |
| 04:25:14.32 | Mayor Blaustein | Okay, so what I'm hearing from you is that we should have a discussion on Site 302. would have liked to have had a more robust conversation about the housing opportunities as a whole. But in the interest of coming to consensus this evening, I went move forward with us just having a discussion on 302 and just note that hopefully going forward, we'll be able to take a closer look at some of the opportunity sites that we're with still in future cycles so with that i will um i think that right now we should open up a discussion on site 302 so who would like to begin a land |
| 04:25:48.97 | Jill Hoffman | I'm happy to weigh in. Yes, please. You know, I'm in favor generally of water-based housing, but I think based on my experience when we were approving the Dumpy Park plan and the 12 years it took to... Maybe even longer. to approve the park at Dunphy Park. and the designation of that area as open water in Sausalito and also the designation of that area as a habitat resource area. that there are people in Sausalito and myself included that are very concerned about that area and environmental impacts to wildlife and just the designation of that, you know, that side of Dumpy Park as sort of a passive or more passive area and understanding that there is a beach there, but that the thought was that the South end of Dumpy park was, um, more of a quiet area as opposed to, um, active. And so, I'm not saying that I would be opposed to that, you know, in the future and future cycles, or if we needed to keep this in reserve and perhaps bring it back, but, At this point, I feel like that the public really would be very, very interested in this site as water-based housing, even though I do support water-based housing. So for that reason, I would support the planning commission um, vote recommendation to remove that. |
| 04:27:19.08 | Mayor Blaustein | I had a few questions just before we go to further comment on this site for Beth. Could you just give us the number of impact if we remove this site to our very low and low inventory specifically? Thank you. Yes. |
| 04:27:29.61 | Beth Thompson | Sure. So let me just pop up my screen here. |
| 04:27:37.39 | Beth Thompson | So. What I've done is taken the Planning Commission recommendations identified in bold here across the bottom what the net effect would be of their recommendations. And so with site 302 removed, you have negative 15 very low units. So if you keep it in, you would be back at six. So that that would give you some more capacity. It definitely this will be when we when the state reviews the sites, they will be looking at individual sites and their readiness to move forward. So There may be a need as you identify sites as you start taking your next steps to you know, really make further evaluation, but it puts you in a much better point for accommodating your very low need. |
| 04:28:25.95 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:28:26.51 | Mayor Blaustein | Okay, thank you. I just wanted to clarify that. Go ahead, council member Kalman. I didn't mean to jump ahead. |
| 04:28:31.81 | Jill Hoffman | That's exactly my question. I appreciate Councilman Hoffman's I was curious kind of where her head was at. My concern was entirely around being able to meet low income affordable housing needs. I also think as a waterfront community, we've talked about this for a long time, I think it's important to try to signal to BCDC that this is a big part of a future housing plan, particularly with flooding and sea level rise, the way it is turning out to be impacting our community. I like the idea for those two reasons of including it on the list. Notwithstanding, I think Councilman Hoffman's excellent comments. So Beth, if we're at negative 15, That's obviously problematic, right? What would be the other option? In that. |
| 04:29:21.76 | Beth Thompson | The other option would be for us to at following adoption is to just revisit some of the assumptions for the allocation of the very low and low units and moderate units and shift some of the sites that meet the size and density criteria of the state just shift some of those moderate and above moderate units to the very low and low. So there could be some juggling. It wouldn't change the overall nature of any of the sites. It would just be some minor adjustments. So that could be done as well to get those 15 units because there is some capacity. |
| 04:29:52.54 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, and then I just want to point out, so 302 and 301, we were contacted by the Honor Bridgeway Marina. This is not Dunphy Park. This is actually underwater lots given back to the city by Cameron and the owner of Bridgeway Murda in the LOI that is pending. So it's a different area. Um, So I just want to be clear on that, that it's not actually part of the park. |
| 04:30:17.61 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. It's a separate parcel. So this is the water parcel that's just west or east of the park. |
| 04:30:21.17 | Joan Cox | So this is- |
| 04:30:27.35 | Joan Cox | And north of Bridgeway Marina. It's the north side of Bridgeway Marina. the underwater streets that were- |
| 04:30:35.30 | Jill Hoffman | I'm not familiar with the area, but the site that was shown during the during the planning commission section was of Dumpy Park water. So Beth, if you want to pull that up, Yeah, let me pull that up. |
| 04:30:45.85 | Beth Thompson | Yeah, let me pull that. |
| 04:30:48.61 | Jill Hoffman | Are we talking about in front of the peninsula? Or are we talking about inside Dunphy Park water? |
| 04:30:54.28 | Beth Thompson | And yet let me pull up an aerial this time instead of the zoning map that might make it a little a little easier. |
| 04:31:06.79 | Jill Hoffman | I'd like for someone to make a request to Google to update their Google Maps to show our beautiful Dunphy Park. I know. You didn't look right now? . |
| 04:31:15.55 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:31:17.98 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:31:17.99 | Unknown | All right. |
| 04:31:25.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:31:32.98 | Beth Thompson | So, 302 is just adjacent Dunphy Park here. 301 is here. So you could also include, there's another parcel here, I believe. I'd have to do a quick check to see if that one is city owned as well. |
| 04:31:48.52 | Joan Cox | as well. Diagram is wrong. I think 302, I think the the understanding, underwater streets that the working group asked to be added are immediately adjacent to 301. They're part of- |
| 04:32:06.68 | Beth Thompson | right here. The city, I think there are a number of underwater streets along this area. |
| 04:32:13.17 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, because of the uncertainty, then I would ask that 302 be removed from this plan and that we revisit it at a future date. |
| 04:32:23.72 | Joan Cox | Yeah, I do not intend that 302 be part of the... sites that's that's an area that's primed for eelgrass so I completely endorse Council Member Hoffman's comments about 302 I was at the restroom when this diagram was brought up previously so. The site that the property owner had in mind is immediately adjacent to 301 is the subject of a letter of intent between. the owner of Bridgeway Marina and the city and was going to be retired. Um, according to pursuant to that and deeded back to the city pursuant to that LOI. And so it was that site. that would be subject to as water-based housing. that |
| 04:33:11.04 | Mayor Blaustein | site that was intended by the council working group for consideration. Yes. So you're saying the diagram is incorrect, but the site. as you've described it. On the record is correct. Correct. |
| 04:33:21.64 | Jill Hoffman | Right, yeah. And I believe this is, I can give you the APN. So the North Lawn and Humboldt between Lithium and Locust. Site is 2.2 acres and approximately 1.1 acres of dry land and 1.1 acres of underwater land. |
| 04:33:33.53 | Mayor Blaustein | Vice Mayor, you've had your hand raised for a while, please. |
| 04:33:39.78 | Ian Sobieski | Well, only I was going to say that. It would be a tremendous achievement to get a lot of on-water housing. I don't understand why we couldn't have the approach of trying to uh, compel or entice our existing marinas to transfer much more of their slip usage to housing, The problem I understood was always BCDC. I'm not sure. being intransigent on this subject. And so I have a question for Beth about whether whether it's whatever lot we're talking about, whether there's any hope Any chance? even better than 10% that HCD would count. whatever units we designate in the housing plan in the next 120 days, given the history of BCDCs and transidents on the subject. |
| 04:34:28.58 | Beth Thompson | I think if you're looking purely at increasing the percentage of births in an existing marina from Thank you. |
| 04:34:37.22 | Ian Sobieski | I'm sorry I didn't mean to complicate my question it's just for this thing the the proposal of the working group sites through to the one adjacent to it is there any chance that given BCD's theses and transigence in general on on water housing even so much that Galley Harbor is a settlement agreement not actually blessed uh that they BCD that the HCD will count this in our |
| 04:34:37.24 | Beth Thompson | I'm sorry. |
| 04:35:01.32 | Ian Sobieski | housing element as housing within the next 60 days, which is when they have to approve it. |
| 04:35:08.12 | Beth Thompson | And that's a valid question and we would have to see. So we did not have any water-based housing in the previous draft that was submitted to the state. There is a program that explores water-based housing, HCD Ashton. that program strengthened, adding a specific site definitely shows the city's commitment to working with BCDC to develop water-based housing. Looking at communities like Galilee Harbor and waterfront communities like Sausalito, it's a very good approach and it takes into account sea level rise. It definitely is an approach that should be explored by communities with limited land opportunities. So, I think the state could be swayed to be on Sausalito's side, but they would also, what they're probably going to want to see, much like ADUs, is that partway through the cycle you demonstrate some progress. you're halfway through the cycle or you're three quarters of the way through the cycle, And the land... you know, nothing's happening with the land or it's not it's not been rezoned or you know various number of things they're going to want to see you replace the sites and that the housing element includes a program to monitor the sites on an ongoing basis, so the city will annually review and monitor the sites to make sure that the sites are still on track to accommodate the city's arena so As you're implementing this parcel, among other parcels, you would be reviewing your progress each year. |
| 04:36:28.36 | Ian Sobieski | I think it's a super laudable goal. I just am wondering if, and we should, I think we should include such sites for the reason you just said, if it's actually true that there's a chance that they would that they would allow it, then it would be great to cut trail. I'm not sure that we internally should be counting, uh, those units because they may not end up working out. And so rather than being caught flat footed three years in, And then again, having some negative repercussions, we need to have a buffer in low income sites so that if we don't succeed at our water-based housing, low income water based housing that we don't run afoul of the state's requirements. for a certain amount of low income housing. So we'd have to add additional sites in low income housing is what I'm saying. Even if we |
| 04:37:16.33 | Mayor Blaustein | We have to wrap them in the next minute. |
| 04:37:17.90 | Ian Sobieski | Even if we include the water site. |
| 04:37:21.94 | Jill Hoffman | Well, we can reallocate is what Beth is saying to us so that we have enough sites because we have a buffer that we can reallocate. But I also just want to caution against We don't. This is our best guess at developable parcels with the opportunity. Somebody's called opportunity site, not a will be developed site list. So I hesitate to speculate about what a developer, an individual, a regular agency will do. I think we try to put together our best package that hits the four different tranches, takes into account community feedback. and is forward thinking. Um, Yo. Yeah, this is what we're just, I think, trying to, not knowing. And so I'm wondering, there's a motion on the table. We have a second. I don't want to force it if people aren't, um, if my colleagues aren't, in favor of it. I don't know, Brenner or Beth, if you're able to. facilitate any type of clarity around what that parcel is. I did send you a second, |
| 04:38:19.29 | Joan Cox | I did send you a second council member Hoffman's motion. |
| 04:38:24.15 | Mayor Blaustein | Okay. |
| 04:38:24.21 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 04:38:26.42 | Mayor Blaustein | Okay. I just wanted an opportunity to weigh in on site 302 before we move forward with the motions just to say. I am very supportive of water based housing, and I am very concerned with limiting our number of very rare units to a negative as we send our housing element to HCD. And if the site is indeed in front of Bridgeway Marina, it makes sense for us to pursue that. So I would be supportive of Councilman Kellman's suggestion to include it adopted planning commissions that was your motion correct councilman Yes, yes, Mary. Yeah, so I would be supportive of that. And I would just really reiterate having a negative very little number is something that concerns me greatly. And I want to put us in the best possible position as we submit housing element for approval. |
| 04:39:11.61 | Joan Cox | The challenge is that what was adopted by the planning commission Thank you. removed site 302 and site 302 does not belong because site 302 is Dunphy Park. we intended an area adjacent to 301. Thank you. And by adjusting our numbers, as the consultant has suggested, we can actually include the water-based housing at Site 301. and not include site 302, and that is why I have seconded Councilmember Hoffman's motion. So are you suggesting then that we add the water-based housing with the 36 units onto site 301? Not exclusively 301, but there's also room on sites the owner of sites 304. five and 72 offered more low income and very low, more low income housing than is reflected on our chart. So I know there is room with other sites. to enjoy. increase the very low and low income numbers as, The consultant has recommended. Okay. |
| 04:40:19.06 | Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:40:19.51 | Joan Cox | advice. |
| 04:40:20.03 | Mayor Blaustein | Can you have your hand raised and then I'll go to Councilman |
| 04:40:23.36 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah, so I don't know if this is gonna help, but I just pulled it up here. the LOI for the Bridgeway Marina and these are the the lots that were being talked about. So, I just pulled this out of my file. Um, So I don't know if we're talking about the city lot. Do we, did Beth, do you actually know? Do these line up? |
| 04:40:50.06 | Jill Hoffman | to the north end where it says Locust Street. And pointing, yeah, 0640, I think that's the, And Director Phipps, you have the APN in front of you. |
| 04:41:09.46 | Unknown | So, No. |
| 04:41:10.21 | Unknown | I think this is a issue. |
| 04:41:10.69 | Jill Hoffman | Do we have a motion pending, though, with a second? |
| 04:41:11.10 | Mayor Blaustein | Yeah. THE MOTION IS ON THE TABLE. YOUR MOTION, COUNCIL MEMBER KELMAN, HAS BEEN SECONDED. AND COUNCIL MEMBER HOFFMANS HAS BEEN SECONDED. DO WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A VOTE ON EACH OF THOSE? |
| 04:41:14.68 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:41:21.93 | Ian Sobieski | Well, I think we're having discussion. |
| 04:41:22.88 | Mayor Blaustein | I'm first on council. |
| 04:41:23.60 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. I have a clarifying question. A question for Beth. Yes. So to be clear, Beth, if we remove site. 302. as was recommended, by the planning commission, although, we're not really sure what that site is. But if we remove that site, even though we're removing on the calculation or chart, some low income sites. as Councilmember Cox also stated. we have flex in the rest of the, 135 sites that would be left or whatever that number is. to reallocate those very low and low income units so that we would not be submitting a plan to the planning to HCD that would be below our required numbers in the very low and low income levels. |
| 04:42:21.18 | Beth Thompson | Correct. We currently |
| 04:42:22.41 | Jill Hoffman | We currently... Okay, thanks. All right. So motions on the table. So I have a follow on question for Beth. |
| 04:42:29.97 | Mayor Blaustein | So you can guarantee that we will be in a positive for our very low income and low income levels with appropriate adjustments or we're going to try to adjust. |
| 04:42:41.87 | Beth Thompson | Yes, so we have on your... Very low, low, moderate and above moderate income sites that are not city owned assumed that a portion of those would develop with moderate and above moderate units and those are ones that would be HCD would allow those to be fully very low and low because they meet the state's size and density requirements so we can adjust some of our assumptions for the. particularly the above moderate downward so that there's some very low and low. And that was just done to reflect that some of those sites will likely move forward with above moderate units, some will move forward with low and very low. And so rather than put all of your eggs on one site, we distributed it across the city because you do need to still accommodate the moderate and above moderate. So yes, we can make those changes. I've taken a quick look at some of those sites where we've made specific assumptions and we have we have some capacity to remove probably We have a potential to have more of those. |
| 04:43:42.38 | Mayor Blaustein | We have a bit. to have more of a low income unit. Yes. |
| 04:43:44.56 | Beth Thompson | Yes, 18 to 20 or so. So yeah, we can make... |
| 04:43:45.32 | Mayor Blaustein | I'm sorry. 18 years. |
| 04:43:49.42 | Beth Thompson | But I mean, it's an address space. |
| 04:43:49.49 | Mayor Blaustein | I mean, we're we're able to offer more very low income housing in our community as a community and be more inclusive. I mean, inclusive, that's your own interpretation, but. Okay, yes. Okay, thank you for clarifying. |
| 04:44:02.36 | Ian Sobieski | The water lot in question here, is it city owned? |
| 04:44:02.38 | Mayor Blaustein | That is the water. |
| 04:44:07.41 | Beth Thompson | The, so. Let me look up. It'll take me just a minute to look up if you want to So this is... Can you tell me the site, the APN one more time? That was 08. 064-08601. |
| 04:44:27.08 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:44:27.14 | Beth Thompson | Thank you. |
| 04:44:27.19 | Jill Hoffman | I believe that was 0.8.6-0.1. Thank you. |
| 04:44:33.33 | Beth Thompson | Okay, let me just see if I can find it in one of our early early, early sites. Bye. |
| 04:44:40.50 | Jill Hoffman | Is this about SEC 302, which is what we're discussing right now? 301. |
| 04:44:44.11 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 04:44:44.16 | Jill Hoffman | about that. |
| 04:44:44.40 | Joan Cox | Yes. |
| 04:44:44.89 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:44:44.97 | Joan Cox | I'm part of Bridgeway Marina, the diagram that Ian put up. |
| 04:44:48.92 | Ian Sobieski | I can put the diagram up again if it helps. I don't know if it does. Just tell me to turn it off if it doesn't help. |
| 04:44:55.13 | Joan Cox | Thank you for putting that up. |
| 04:44:55.55 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 04:44:56.63 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 04:44:56.68 | Ian Sobieski | against. |
| 04:44:56.70 | Joan Cox | Yeah. Bye. |
| 04:44:57.04 | Ian Sobieski | Member Sobieski. Yeah. So I don't know which one you want to look at this one. |
| 04:45:02.62 | Beth Thompson | And so 06408601 is owned by the Bridgeway Marina Corps. |
| 04:45:08.97 | Ian Sobieski | Okay, so it's a Bridgeway, currently a Bridgeway Marina owned lot. All right, so if that can't be developed, we're under no obligation. And if it's a city of luck, like city owned property, we'd be under a different set of obligation to proceed. Correct. |
| 04:45:23.57 | Joan Cox | But Cameron Ravaz, |
| 04:45:23.74 | Ian Sobieski | Yeah. |
| 04:45:26.25 | Joan Cox | indicated interest in developing both the land side and water side lots on his property. |
| 04:45:33.03 | Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 04:45:33.84 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:45:33.86 | Mayor Blaustein | Correct. Okay, so we have two motions and two seconds on the table. If there are no further comments, let's go ahead and move forward with a roll call vote, beginning with Council Member Hoffman's motion. |
| 04:45:46.16 | Jill Hoffman | I'm sorry, Mayor, I'll remove my, if you're happy with that other motion, I will. I'm not happy. |
| 04:45:52.59 | Mayor Blaustein | I'm not happy with removing any opportunity for very low income housing. I feel like we need to do what we can do to include it. |
| 04:46:00.76 | Walfred Solorzano | Council Member Cox? Yes. Councilmember Hoffman? Yes. Council Member Common. Thank you. |
| 04:46:06.94 | Ian Sobieski | Thank you. |
| 04:46:06.97 | Walfred Solorzano | Bye. Vice Mayor Sobieski? |
| 04:46:10.09 | Ian Sobieski | down. |
| 04:46:11.59 | Walfred Solorzano | And Mayor Blossy. Thank you. |
| 04:46:12.69 | Mayor Blaustein | out. Yeah, I know. Can we have a roll call vote on council member Cowman's motion? to include Site 302. |
| 04:46:21.89 | Ian Sobieski | Council Member Cox. I'm sorry, I'm confused now. What's this motion? |
| 04:46:22.98 | Mayor Blaustein | No. |
| 04:46:23.37 | Joan Cox | All right. |
| 04:46:26.39 | Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 04:46:26.41 | Joan Cox | So this, the one we just did was to not include 302, which is Dunphy park, but to rely on 301. And you voted against that one. |
| 04:46:37.36 | Ian Sobieski | Ought to include. |
| 04:46:38.17 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 04:46:38.19 | Mayor Blaustein | We didn't say to rely on 301 to have the 36 sites. It was just to... |
| 04:46:44.09 | Ian Sobieski | I'm sorry. |
| 04:46:44.57 | Joan Cox | you |
| 04:46:44.63 | Mayor Blaustein | It was to remove 302. |
| 04:46:45.97 | Joan Cox | Eelgrass. |
| 04:46:49.41 | Jill Hoffman | Well, so to be clear, I do not want Dunphy Park Eelgrass to be the lot, right? Which is why I said, if we don't, if we're okay with the other motion. |
| 04:46:59.60 | Joan Cox | That's what 302 is, Janelle. We just saw it on the map. |
| 04:47:01.79 | Jill Hoffman | You know what? That is Dunphy Park, eelgrass. Thank you, council member. I'm aware of that. And so what I'm inquiring is whether our consulting could help us articulate |
| 04:47:05.68 | Joan Cox | Thank you, Councilor. |
| 04:47:12.29 | Jill Hoffman | an alternative, because that is the confusion there. Um, If you cannot at this point in time, I'll take the alternative, then I will withdraw my motion because I don't think anybody on the council wants to put housing within Dumpy Park Eelgrass. And then I'll ask for that other motion either to be made again or roll call to be called again. |
| 04:47:31.75 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:47:31.76 | Unknown | You know, it's... The... |
| 04:47:33.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:47:33.38 | Jill Hoffman | This is on to the consultant, please, and to Director Phipps to help us navigate this parcel. If it cannot be done right now, please let us know because we have two really good motions that are going to help us adopt our housing element. And it's just hinging on the identity of this parcel. |
| 04:47:33.44 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:47:33.47 | Unknown | This is- |
| 04:47:33.98 | Unknown | I'm not. |
| 04:47:33.99 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 04:47:49.11 | Ian Sobieski | Hey, Janelle, just a question for you. Is it possible to articulate a motion where we're approving THE LOT THAT YOU THINK WOULD WANT TO APPROVE. IT'S NOT THE ONE THAT WAS ON THE DRAWING. That's what she's asking. |
| 04:47:58.65 | Jill Hoffman | That's what she's asking. Look, we're gonna have our city attorney weigh in on this. We are not changing these parcels other than what was publicly available and publicly voted on. |
| 04:48:00.35 | Ian Sobieski | That's right. |
| 04:48:08.74 | Jill Hoffman | in uh in the first half of this meeting. So I, you know, if we have to have our city attorney weigh in, that's fine. |
| 04:48:15.35 | Jill Hoffman | Councilmember Kellerman has withdrawn her motion. So, and she's requested that the second motion be called again for a vote. And I would request that we move forward in our moment. unless we have our city attorney recommending another course of action. Right. We can't watch. Thank you. Yeah. It may be that we need to go back in a closed session. So maybe that's the motion. No, I agree with you. I'm calling the motion. Let's call again. I'm asking the motion to be called, the question to be called. |
| 04:48:38.99 | Jill Hoffman | No, Kelsma Hoffman, I agree with you. Let's call it again. |
| 04:48:44.99 | Jill Hoffman | We have a response from the city attorney. |
| 04:48:47.74 | Sergio Rudin | Yeah, can we restate the motion that is being voted on? Because I think that is part of the confusion here. |
| 04:48:53.85 | Joan Cox | The motion by Councilmember Hoffman was to approve the Planning Commission recommendation. which removed site 302. with the exception, |
| 04:49:07.03 | Jill Hoffman | That was it. That was it. That was my motion, but I'm happy to restate my motion to just that we. And that we approve the recommendation of the planning commission with regard to our sites. |
| 04:49:19.43 | Jill Hoffman | Councilman Hoffman, will you accept the following amendment? Because Site 302 is part of Dunphy Park and in Yieldgrass Habitat. |
| 04:49:29.50 | Mayor Blaustein | us. Yes. Okay, so we'll add that into the language of the motions. Thank you. Okay. Okay, now can we call? I second that motion. |
| 04:49:38.55 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 04:49:39.66 | Sergio Rudin | Okay, so the motion is to approve the Planning Commission recommendation. with a removal of site 302 because it is the eel grasp. portion of Numpy Park. Um, Beth, I think I have an important question for you. which is given that recommendation, I would like you to confirm that we are either at or above are required very low and low income Um, with with that removal? And if not, can you suggest some some language to allocate or redistribute sites so the council can be aware of what staff are going to be proposing in response to that. |
| 04:50:22.86 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, since I'm making a motion, I'm happy to include direction to the staff that the very low and low income units be reapportioned across. the other, the remaining 100 plus sites. And I second that amended motion. |
| 04:50:38.40 | Ian Sobieski | I have just a question. So the motion is to approve the the PLANNING COMMISSION. recommended sites in total. with that change. |
| 04:50:46.81 | Mayor Blaustein | Yeah. with direction to staff to spread the additional very low units across all of the sites. |
| 04:50:53.12 | Ian Sobieski | so that's seconded I would like to make my motion then to accept the working group. sites just removing site to uh 927 bridgeway so that's the larger number with the larger basically it's the larger buffer |
| 04:51:06.55 | Joan Cox | The working group sites included site 302, which is Dunphy Park, eelgrass. |
| 04:51:11.11 | Ian Sobieski | Sorry, without 302 or? without 302 or thank you very much council member Cox without three site 302 and without 927 bridgeway so accepting the working city council working group recommendations without 927 bridgeway or or was it? the other one 302. So. That's to have more. bigger buffer. Yes. But if there's no second, then that will die for lack of a second. |
| 04:51:44.82 | Mayor Blaustein | respectfully, I am... not going to. invest in We're moving further sites, so I think we should just move forward because we do have a second and a motion on the table. But I appreciate your perspective, vice mayor, and the time that you put into this discussion. And I appreciate everyone's perspective. I know it is getting late and we have been here for six hours. So I'm sorry if the tenor of the rest session part of this discussion perhaps got away from us a little bit. But anyway, let's move forward and vote on Council Member Hoffman's motion. Just a final clarification, city attorney, this is all, everything has been done as necessary with the direction to staff to out reallocate the very low income units across. |
| 04:52:22.79 | Sergio Rudin | Yes, I think so. Beth, is that actually a feasible suggestion from the council? |
| 04:52:30.64 | Denise Gerardo | I believe we're all. |
| 04:52:31.21 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 04:52:31.28 | Beth Thompson | I believe so. I would recommend |
| 04:52:31.30 | Denise Gerardo | I believe. |
| 04:52:31.92 | Joan Cox | It's a great day. |
| 04:52:33.71 | Beth Thompson | Pardon me? |
| 04:52:35.03 | Joan Cox | The question was to Beth, I think. Is that feasible direction? |
| 04:52:36.44 | Beth Thompson | Bye. . I believe it is. And I would ask that we adjust it across the very low and low to provide a buffer for both of those because you barely have a buffer for low so that we adjust that. And then based on the water-based housing, we can add a component to the program addressing water-based housing to explore and identify specific sites for water-based housing. And that would give you the opportunity mid-cycle to identify additional sites. And if you need to do any moving around, you could do that. Could you wrap that up? |
| 04:53:03.71 | Jill Hoffman | Could you add that to your motion, Council Member Hoffman? No, but it's too much for the motion. The motion's on the table. It's been seconded. I call the vote. |
| 04:53:16.20 | Walfred Solorzano | I'm also member Cox. Yes. Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 04:53:19.39 | Lisa Chilino | Yes. |
| 04:53:20.22 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Common. |
| 04:53:21.40 | Lisa Chilino | Yes. |
| 04:53:22.66 | Walfred Solorzano | Vice Mayor Sobieski? Yes. And Mayor Blossy. you |
| 04:53:26.07 | Joan Cox | Yes. And now I move that we direct staff to add to its program, the program, |
| 04:53:28.01 | Lisa Chilino | Thank you. |
| 04:53:28.05 | Walfred Solorzano | And now I'm. |
| 04:53:28.82 | Jenny Silva | Thank you. |
| 04:53:36.03 | Joan Cox | Thank you. the description that Beth gave about increasing the opportunity for water based housing, including at site 301 and elsewhere. |
| 04:53:46.46 | Unknown | Second. |
| 04:53:46.88 | Joan Cox | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:53:48.03 | Walfred Solorzano | would you please call roll? Just who was the second on that one just for? |
| 04:53:53.31 | Joan Cox | Both Ian and Paul. Yeah, I don't care. |
| 04:53:56.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:53:57.33 | Walfred Solorzano | Right. |
| 04:53:57.54 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 04:53:57.61 | Walfred Solorzano | Yeah. |
| 04:53:57.73 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:53:59.72 | Walfred Solorzano | I was the vice mayor. Council Member Cox? Yes. Council member Hoffman. |
| 04:54:04.80 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 04:54:05.04 | Walfred Solorzano | you Councilmember Kelman. |
| 04:54:06.69 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:54:06.72 | Mayor Blaustein | Yes. |
| 04:54:06.93 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 04:54:07.38 | Walfred Solorzano | Vice Mayor Sobieski? And Mayor Blasley. |
| 04:54:10.69 | Mayor Blaustein | Yes. So now we have, we will make a motion to adopt the resolution to approve our housing elements. So who would like to make the motion? |
| 04:54:20.12 | Joan Cox | I remove we adopt the resolution approving our housing element, Yeah. A resolution of the city council of the city of Sausalito adopting a general plan amendment to update the housing element of the general plan for the sixth cycle period of 2023 to 2031 to affirmatively further fair housing and substantially comply with state housing law. INCORPORATING into the site's inventory review. reflected by that resolution. the site inventories and direction provided to the council through our two previous motions. |
| 04:55:05.60 | Jill Hoffman | I'd like to second that. |
| 04:55:07.96 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 04:55:08.03 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 04:55:08.42 | Joan Cox | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:55:08.69 | Walfred Solorzano | Thank you. |
| 04:55:08.72 | Joan Cox | See you next time. |
| 04:55:08.77 | Walfred Solorzano | clerk, will you please call the roll? Councilmember Cox? Council Member Hoffman? |
| 04:55:13.65 | Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 04:55:14.22 | Walfred Solorzano | Councilmember Cummins. |
| 04:55:15.39 | Mayor Blaustein | Yes. |
| 04:55:16.35 | Walfred Solorzano | Vice Mayor Sobieski? Yes. Yes. and Mayor Blostey. |
| 04:55:19.76 | Mayor Blaustein | Yes, and I rarely use the gavel, but this is a big occasion. So this motion passes unanimously five zero. Thank you so much, City Council. |
| 04:55:26.61 | Jill Hoffman | Well done, no. Thank you, the planning commission staff. Thank you. |
| 04:55:29.65 | Mayor Blaustein | Thank you. |
| 04:55:29.75 | Jill Hoffman | with you. |
| 04:55:29.90 | Mayor Blaustein | Thank you very much again to the planning commission staff, the special city council working group, members of our community. This was a. Herculean efforts and I am At this time, ready to adjourn the meeting at 8.48 PM. Thank you very much. Well done, thank you. Thank you. |
| 04:55:53.98 | Unknown | you |
Heather Wilcox — Against: Supported low-income housing but opposed housing in the Marinship, emphasizing preservation for artists and the working waterfront. ▶ 📄
Kim Staubert — Neutral: Advocated for smaller, affordable townhomes consistent with the community rather than overdeveloped large homes. ▶ 📄
Jim Gerardo — Against: Requested removal of sites 207-210 (Bridgeway properties) added without proper notice or study, citing lack of due process. ▶ 📄
Aditya Padala — Against: Opposed development at 66 Marion due to safety concerns like landslides, but commended the council's efforts. ▶ 📄
Adriana Bentley — Against: Expressed concern about impact on neighbors near site 84 (MLK) and requested inclusion in discussions. ▶ 📄
Lisa Chilino — Against: Supported reducing units at MLK to 75 for fair distribution across the city and preserving public green spaces. ▶ 📄
Stacy Nimmo — Against: Argued MLK site should remain a community center, citing financial obligations and better alternatives. ▶ 📄
Karen Culligan — In Favor: Encouraged keeping as many opportunity sites as possible due to potential project failures, referencing past low completion rates. ▶ 📄
Jenny Silva — Against: Criticized lack of community input on site changes and removal of sites likely for senior/affordable housing, urging more thoughtful process. ▶ 📄
Alice Merrill — Against: Opposed housing in the Marinship south of Harbor Drive, highlighting its value and gentrification concerns. ▶ 📄
Jonathan — Against: Urged preservation of tennis courts at MLK due to limited public courts and community use. ▶ 📄
Craig Merrily — Against: Advocated for housing locations that avoid conflicts with the working waterfront, presenting petitions with over 1,000 signatures. ▶ 📄
Pat Zook — Neutral: Supported retaining tennis courts at MLK and noted concerns about site 302 (Dunphy Park) access and parking. ▶ 📄
Sandra Bushmaker — In Favor: Urged adoption to retain local control and avoid penalties, thanking the planning commission and council. ▶ 📄
Keith Diggs — Against: Argued the housing element is rushed and poorly considered, suggesting legalization of density instead. ▶ 📄
Vicki Nichols — In Favor: Supported adoption to avoid one-year rezoning penalty and retain three-year flexibility, noting other jurisdictions' struggles. ▶ 📄
Denise Gerardo — Against: Requested removal of site 208 (927 Bridgeway) due to lack of notice and due process, expressing personal concern. ▶ 📄
John — In Favor: Thanked officials for their work, supported housing north of Harbor Drive, and opposed Alameda's waterfront redevelopment model. ▶ 📄
Peter McGuire — In Favor: Endorsed planning commission resolution and working group efforts, emphasizing increased site availability and dismissing 'noise'. ▶ 📄